Andrew at Popular Technology has taken the time (quite a bit of it) to compile a list of papers that have skeptical views. It is reproduced in full here. My thanks to him for doing this. – Anthony
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW caused Global Warming
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
– Craig Loehle
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
– Heinz Hug
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov
A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
– A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger
Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski
Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens
Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
– J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
– William Kininmonth
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
– Adrian K. Kerton
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
– Tim F. Ball
Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
– Craig Loehle
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, March 2007)
– Lance Endersbee
Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background
(Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)
– Raymond Sneyers
Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
– David C. Archibald
Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12, pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
– Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi
Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447, July 2007)
– Arthur Rörsch
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
– David Bellamy, Jack Barrett
Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
(Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)
– Wibjörn Karlén
CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate: Comment (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp. 18–18, July 2004)
– Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
– G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
– Roland Granqvist
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
– Craig Loehle
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– Robert M. Carter
Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186, January 2001)
– John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 323-326, May 2003)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 88, Number 6, pp. 913-928, June 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
– Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp 44-46, May 2001)
– Robert H. Essenhigh
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– Craig D. Idso
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)
– Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Evidence Delimiting Past Global Climate Changes
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 151, September 1999)
– John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjörn Karlén
Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
(Nature, Volume 408, Issue 6813, pp. 698-701, December 2000)
– Ján Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 2, July 2002)
– R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
Global Warming (PDF)
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 448-455, September 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Global Warming: A Reduced Threat? (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
– Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury
Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
(Environmental Geology, Volume 46, Numbers 6-7, pp. 970-979, October 2004)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar
Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126, January 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Correcting the Data (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 31, Number 3, pp.46-52, 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Is Sanity Returning?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 721-731, September 2009)
– Nigel Lawson
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– Marcel Leroux
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 87-98, 1992)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
– Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
(Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September 2009)
– G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel
Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 6, pp. 1037-1045, November 2005)
– Jack Barrett
How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for Global Warming Theory (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp. 1097–1106, June 1997)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Human effect on global climate?
(Nature, Volume 384, Issue 6609, pp. 522-523, December 1996)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 423, Number 6939, pp. 528-531, May 2003)
– Eugenia Kalnay, Ming Cai
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)
– Willie H. Soon
In defense of Milankovitch (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 24, December 2006)
– Gerard Roe
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 5, March 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
– John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 367-373, July 2009)
– J. Huston McCulloch
Is the enhancement of global warming important?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 335-341, July 2001)
– M.C.R. Symons, Jack Barrett
Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503, July 2004)
– Ya. K. Kondratyev
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 4, February 2006)
– John R. Christy, W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 4, April 2005)
– Christopher A. Davey, Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 259–275, November 2001)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 187–188, September 2002)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 93–94, June 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January 2007)
– Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 45–53, July 2001)
– Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis
Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 18, pp. 2905–2908, September 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, May 2003)
– Landscheidt T.
Observed warming in cold anticyclones (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 1–6, January 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling Jr, Robert E. Davis
Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
(Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, pp. 3296-3300, August 2009)
– David H. Douglassa, Robert S. Knox
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Numbers 2-3, pp. 333-342, February 2009)
– G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh
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. 260-268, September 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? (PDF)
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar
On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue D20, October 2002)
– Olavi Kamer
On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 671-684, August 2008)
– D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607, July 2006)
– Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug
Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
(Technology, Volume 7S, pp. 189-213, 2000)
– Indur M. Goklany
(Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)
– Robert H. Essenhigh
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April 2002)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, Volume 2, pp. 3-11, February 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 89–110, January 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes (PDF)
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75, June 1999)
– John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjörn Karlén
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
– Fred Goldberg
Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity
(Ambio, Volume 37, Number sp14, pp. 483–488, November 2008)
– Wibjörn Karlén
Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 595-596, August 2009)
– David R. B. Stockwell
Recent Global Warming: An Artifact of a Too-Short Temperature Record? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 34, Number 3, pp. 263–264, May 2005)
– Wibjörn Karlén
Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties
(Futures, Volume 25, Number 8, pp. 850-863, 1993)
– M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, 2002)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Science, Equity, and the War against Carbon
(Science, Technology & Human Values, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 69-92, 2003)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF)
(Social Studies of Science, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 895-922, December 2005)
– Myanna Lahsen
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121, January 2009)
– Tom Quirk
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes
(Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp. 3342–335, June 2009)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Richard T. McNider
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 15-18, June 2003)
– David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, David A. Belsley
The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The cause of global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 2000)
– Vincent Gray
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp.16-22, 2007)
– Stanley W. Trimble
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (PDF)
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)
Madhav L. Khandekar, TS Murty, P Chittibabu
The greenhouse effect and global change: review and reappraisal
(International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 36, Numbers 1-2, pp. 55-71, July 1990)
– Patrick J. Michaels
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003)
– Hans Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes
The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
– Benny Peiser
The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth’s troposphere
(Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 415-417, March 1995)
– Jack Barrett
The value of climate forecasting
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 7, Number 3, June 1985)
– Garth W. Paltridge
The Way of Warming (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 23, Number 3, 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 3, Number 4, pp. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, October 2009)
– Craig Loehle
Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-359, February 2009)
– Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, March 2007)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D5, March 2009)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. 470-479, March 2008)
– Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey
Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making (PDF)
(International Journal of Forecasting, doi:10.1016, May 2009)
– Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 6, March 2004)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris
When Was The Hottest Summer? A State Climatologist Struggles for an Answer
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp. 723-734, May 2002)
– John R. Christy
An Inconvenient Truth:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 15-19, September 2007)
– David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 11-14, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer
Antarctica:
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)
– Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell
Active volcanism beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet and implications for ice-sheet stability
(Nature, Volume 361, Number 6412, p. 526-529, February 1993)
– Donald D. Blankenship et al.
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 18, September 2009)
– Marco Tedesco, Andrew J. Monaghan
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
(Nature, Volume 415, Number 6871, pp. 517-520, January 2002)
– Peter T. Doran et al.
First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat
(Geology, Volume 29, Number 9, pp. 787-790, September 2001)
– Carol J. Pudsey, Jeffrey Evans
Orbitally induced oscillations in the East Antarctic ice sheet at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary
(Nature, Volume 413, Number 6857, pp. 719-723 , October 2001)
– Tim R. Naish et al.
Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(Science, Volume 286. Number 5438, pp. 280-283, October 1999)
– H. Conway, B. L. Hall, G. H. Denton, A. M. Gades, E. D. Waddington
Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
(Science, Volume 308, Number 5730, pp. 1898-1901, June 2005)
– Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna
Arctic:
Actual and insolation-weighted Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice between 1973–2002
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 22, Issue 6-7, pp. 591-595, June 2004)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr., G. Liston, W. Chapman, D. Robinson
Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs Reflect Present Climate Conditions
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 40, pp. 410-412, 2003)
– James E. Overland, Kevin Wood
Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp. 1039-1042, March 2001)
– P. Winsor
Has Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinned? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 13, pp.1691-1701, July 2002)
– Greg Holloway,Tessa Sou
Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue C1, January 2006)
– Dmitry V. Divine, Chad Dick
(Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 45, Number 11, pp. 1377-1397, November 2008)
– J.L. McKay et al.
Sea-ice decline due to more than warming alone
(Nature, Volume 450, Issue 7166, pp. 27, November 2007)
– Julia Slingo, Rowan Sutton
(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
– Willie H. Soon
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 16, August 2005)
– Willie H. Soon
Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent
(Geophyscial Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 9, May 2004)
– Ignatius G. Rigor, John M. Wallace
Clouds:
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 15, August 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo
Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417-432, March 2001)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou
– Comment on “No Evidence for Iris” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 9, pp. 1345–1349, September 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou
– Reply to: “Tropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth infrared iris feedback?” (PDF)
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 99-101, May 2002)
– Ming-Dah Chou, Richard S. Lindzen, Arthur Y. Hou
– Comments on “The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?” (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 18, September 2002)
– Ming-Dah Chou, Richard S. Lindzen, Arthur Y. Hou
– Reply to Comment on “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp. 598-600, April, 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 21, November 2006)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho
Validation of the cloud property retrievals from the MTSAT-1R imagery using MODIS observations (PDF)
(International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2009)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho
CO2 lags Temperature changes:
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
(Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
– Bärbel Hönisch, N. Gary Hemming, David Archer, Mark Siddall, Jerry F. McManus
“The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition.”
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 5, March 2000)
– Andreas Inderm¨uhle, Eric Monnin, Bernhard Stauer, Thomas F. Stocker
“The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.”
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Volume 291. Number 5501, January 2001)
– Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola
“The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
– Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
“High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, Volume 318, Issue 5849, September 2007)
– Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
“Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.”
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 583-589, February 2001)
– Manfred Mudelsee
“Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka”
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science, Volume 299, Number 5613, March 2003)
– Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
Coral Reefs:
A critique of a method to determine long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 783-796, November 2007)
– Peter V. Ridd
Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing (PDF)
(Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp. 503-515, March 2008)
– Zoe T. Richardsa, Maria Begerd, Silvia Pincae, Carden C. Wallace
Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 22, November 2004)
– Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, David J. Barnes
Reef corals bleach to survive change
(Nature, Volume 411, Issue 6839, pp. 765-766, June 2001)
– Andrew C. Baker
Deaths:
Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States (PDF)
(Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 14, pp. 1712-1718, November 2003)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff
Cold—an underrated risk factor for health
(Environmental Research, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp. 8-13, May 2003)
– James B. Mercer
Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels
Global Health Threats: Global Warming in Perspective (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 69-75, 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study
(British Medical Journal, Volume 321, Number 7262, pp. 670-673, September 2000)
– W. R. Keatinge et al.
Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels,
Wendy M. Novicoff
(International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 51, Number 2, November 2006)
– Mohamed Laaidi, Karine Laaidi, Jean-Pierre Besancenot
U.S. Trends in Crude Death Rates Due to Extreme Heat and Cold Ascribed to Weather, 1979-97
(Technology, Volume 7S, pp. 165-173, 2000)
– Indur M. Goklany, Sorin R. Straja
Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 23, December 2006)
– Thomas N. Chase, Klaus Wolter, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Ichtiaque Rasool
Floods:
Claim of Largest Flood on Record Proves False
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Number 12, pp. 109-109, 2003)
– N. A. Sheffer et al.
Floods, droughts and climate change
(South African Journal of Science, Volume 91, Number 8, pp. 403-408, August 1995)
– W.J.R. Alexander
Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp.437-442, March 2000)
– Stanley A. Changnon, Roger A. Pielke Jr., David Changnon, Richard T. Sylves, Roger Pulwarty
Nine Fallacies of Floods (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 42, Number 2, June 1999)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.
No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe
(Nature, Volume 425, Issue 6954, pp. 166-169, September 2003)
– Manfred Mudelsee, Michael Börngen, Gerd Tetzlaff, Uwe Grünewald
(Holocene, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 763-778, 2003)
– Amdt Schimmelmann, Carina B. Lange, Betty J. Meggers
Glaciers:
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 16, August 2006)
– Nicolas J. Cullen et al.
Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate Change: Observations and Fact (PDF)
(International journal of climatology, Volume 24, Number 3, pp. 329-339, March 2004)
– Georg Kaser et al.
(Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp. 141-157, March 2005)
– T. Chinn et al.
The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
(American Scientist, Volume 95, Number 4, pp. 318-325, July 2007)
– PW Mote, G Kaser
Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D9, May 2007)
– C. Vincent, E. Le Meur, D. Six, M. Funk, M. Hoelzle, S. Preunkert
Greenland:
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 63, Numbers 1-2, pp. 201-221, March 2004)
– Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box, Glen Lesins
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 11, June 2006)
– Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins
Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
(Science, Volume 315, Number 5818, pp. 1559-1561, March 2007)
– Ian M. Howat, Ian Joughin, Ted A. Scambos
Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 32-1, February 2003)
– Edward Hanna, John Cappelen
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
– Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev
Gulf Stream:
Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns
(Nature, Volume 428, Issue 6983, April 2004)
– Carl Wunsch
Hockey Stick: (MBH98)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
“Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape”
– Reply to comment by Huybers on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
(Nature, Volume 433, Issue 7026, pp. 613-617, February 2005)
– Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years”
(Science, Volume 316, Number 5833, pp. 1844, June 2007)
– Gerd Bürger
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
– David Holland
A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 94, Numbers 3-4, pp. 233-245, June 2008)
– C. Loehle
Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Number 6, February 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hurricanes:
Are there trends in hurricane destruction? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11, December 2005)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 313, Number 5786, pp. 452-454, July 2006)
– Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff
Causes of the Unusually Destructive 2004 Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 87, Issue 10, October 2006)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray
(Journal of Climate, Volume 18, Issue 23, December 2005)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Landsea
Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900 (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 88, Number 18, pp. 197, May 2007)
– Christopher W. Landsea
Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2005)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch
– Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming—Potential Linkages and Consequences” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 87, Issue 5, May 2006)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch
Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11-E12, December 2005)
– Christopher W. Landsea
Landscape and Regional Impacts of Hurricanes in New England
(Ecological Monographs, Volume 71, Number 1, pp. 27-48, February 2001)
– Emery R. Boose, Kristen E. Chamberlin, David R. Foster
Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925–95 (PDF)
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 13, Issue 3, September 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea
Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005 (PDF)
(Natural Hazards, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42, February 2008)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Joel Gratz, Christopher W. Landsea, Douglas Collins, Mark A. Saunders, Rade Musulin6
Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 9, May 2006)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert E. Davis
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 1, Number 6, pp. 359-364, June 2008)
– Thomas R. Knutson et al.
Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986–2005) (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 11, May 2006)
– Philip J. Klotzbach
Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Issue 1, January 1998)
– A. Henderson-Sellers, H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Holland, J. Lighthill, S.-L. Shieh, P. Webster, K. McGuffie
Malaria:
Climate Change and Mosquito-Borne Disease (PDF)
(Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Supplement 1, March 2001)
– Paul Reiter
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Emerging Infectious Diseases, Volume 6, Number 1, January–February 2000)
– Paul Reiter
Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy
(Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp. 323-324, June 2004)
– Paul Reiter, C. Thomas, P. Atkinson, S. Hay, S. Randolph, D. Rogers, G. Shanks, R. Snow, A. Spielman
Global warming and malaria: knowing the horse before hitching the cart
(Malaria Journal, Volume 7, Supplement 1, December 2008)
– Paul Reiter
Malaria and Global Warming in Perspective? (PDF)
(Emerging Infectious Diseases, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 438-9. July-August 2000)
– Paul Reiter
Medieval Warming Period – Little Ice Age:
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 39, Number 1, pp.127-132, June 2004)
– P.A Mayewski et al.
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 20, pp. 3365-3368, Octonber 2000)
– Amos Winter, Hiroshi Ishioroshi, Tsuyoshi Watanabe, Tadamichi Oba, John R. Christy
Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period
(Science, Volume 288, Number 5474, pp. 2198-2202, June 2000)
– Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 14, pp. 1-4, July 2002)
– E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D’Arrigo
(Quaternary Research, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 27-37, July 2009)
– Nicolas Rolland et al.
Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 289-297, March 1994)
– De’Er Zhang
Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 143-169, March 1994)
– Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur
Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)
(Paleoceanography, Volume 18, Number 2, June 2003)
– Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl
Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
(Science, Volume 295, Number 5563, pp. 2250-2253, March 2002)
– Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, pp. 113-125, July 2004)
– K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller
Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 36, Issues 1-2, pp. 17-29, March 2003)
– T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates
“Many records reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”
The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Volume 274, Number 5292, pp. 1503-1508, November 29, 1996)
– Lloyd D. Keigwin
The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
(South African Journal of Science, Volume 96, Number 3, pp. 121-126, 2000)
– P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss
The Little Ice Age as Recorded in the Stratigraphy of the Tropical Quelccaya Ice Cap
(Science, Volume 234, Number 4774, pp. 361-364, October 1986)
– L.G. Thompson, E. Mosley-Thompson, W. Dansgaard, P.M. Grootes
The ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China
(Holocene, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 511-516, 2002)
– Guoqiang Chu, Jiaqi Liu, Qing Sun, Houyuan Lu, Zhaoyan Gu, Wenyuan Wang, Tungsheng Liu
The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
(Journal of Lake Sciences, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 209-216, September 2002)
– Z. Jin, J. Shen, S. Wang, E. Zhang
Time scales and trends in the central England temperature data (1659–1990): A wavelet analysis
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp. 1351-1354, June 1997)
– Sallie Baliunas, Peter Frick, Dmitry Sokoloff, Willie Soon
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8, December 2008)
– Håkan Grudd
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March 1994)
– Ricardo Villalba
Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
– Wallace S. Broecker
“The Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming were global in extent. Several Holocene fluctuations in snowline, comparable in magnitude to that of the post-Little Ice Age warming, occurred in the Swiss Alps. Borehole records both in polar ice and in wells from all continents suggest the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. Finally, two multidecade-duration droughts plagued the western United States during the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period. I consider this evidence sufficiently convincing to merit an intensification of studies aimed at elucidating Holocene climate fluctuations, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.”
Ocean Acidification:
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Issue 23, pp. 9316-9321, June 2009)
– Rebecca A. Gooding, Christopher D. G. Harley, Emily Tang
Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 10, May 2006)
– Hugo A. Loáiciga
“This paper’s results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World
(Science, Volume 320, Number 5874, pp. 336-340, April 2008)
– M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.
Permafrost:
Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic
(Science, Volume 321, Number 5896, pp. 1648, September 2008)
– Duane G. Froese, John A. Westgate, Alberto V. Reyes, Randolph J. Enkin, Shari J. Preece
“We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.”
Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 9, May 2007)
– G. Delisle
“Based on paleoclimatic data and in consequence of this study, it is suggested that scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable.”
Polar Bears:
(Ecological Complexity, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 73-84, September 2007)
– M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock
(Ecological Complexity, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp. 289-302, December 2008)
– M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock
Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (PDF)
(Interfaces, Volume 75, April 2008)
– J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, Willie H. Soon
Estimating future sea level changes from past records (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 62, Issues 3-4, Pages 219-220, June 2008)
– Nils-Axel Mörner
Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 57, Issues 3-4, pp. 396-406, June 2007)
– G. Wöppelmann, B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, Z. Altamimi
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1067-1074, 2009)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
New perspectives for the future of the Maldives (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 177-182, January 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp. 70-71, February 2005)
– Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley
Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
(Science, Volume 308, Number 5730, pp. 1898-1901, June 2005)
– Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna)
(International Quarterly for Asian Studies, Volume 38, Number 3–4, pp. 353–374, November 2007)
– Nils-Axel Mörner
The Maldives project: a future free from sea-level flooding
(Contemporary South Asia, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149-155, June 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner
Species Extinctions:
Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions
(Nature, Volume 428, Issue 6985, pp. 799, April 2004)
– Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker
Riding the Wave: Reconciling the Roles of Disease and Climate Change in Amphibian Declines
(PLoS Biology, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 441-454, March 2008)
– Karen R. Lips, Jay Diffendorfer, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Michael W. Sears
Storms:
Changes in Global Monsoon Circulations Since 1950
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 229-254, June 2003)
– T. N. Chase, J. A. Knaff, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay
Changing storminess? An analysis of long-term sea level data sets (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 161-172, March 1999)
– W. Bijl, R. Flather, J. G. de Ronde, T. Schmith
Characteristics of long-duration precipitation events across the United States
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 22, November 2007)
– David M. Brommer, Randall S. Cerveny, Robert C. Balling Jr.
Climate change and extratropical storminess in the United States: An assessment?
(Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 1387-1398, December 1999)
– Bruce P. Hayden
Comment on WMO Statement on Extreme Weather Events
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 41, pp. 428-428 , February 2003)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 103-112, June 2003)
– Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny
Extreme Weather Trends Vs. Dangerous Climate Change: A Need for Critical Reassessment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 327-332, March 2005)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
Indian Monsoon Variability in a Global Warming Scenario
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 189-206, June 2003)
– R. H. Kripalani, Ashwini Kulkarni, S. S. Sabade, M. L Khandekar
North American Trends in Extreme Precipitation
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 291-305, June, 2003)
– Kenneth E. Kunkel
Scandinavian storminess since about 1800
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 20, October 2004)
– Lars Bärring, Hans von Storch
Seasonal, interannual, and decadal variability of storm surges at Tauranga, New Zealand
(New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Volume 34, Number 3, pp. 419-434, September 2000)
– W. P. De Lange, J. G. Gibb
(Oceanologica Acta, Volume 23, Number 6, pp. 643-661, November 2000)
– P.A. Pirazzoli
Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA?
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 24, Number 15, pp. 1873-1882, December 2004)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Twentieth-Century Storm Activity along the U.S. East Coast (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp. 1748-1761, May 2000)
– Keqi Zhang, Bruce C. Douglas, Stephen P. Leatherman
Tornadoes:
Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999 (PDF)
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
– Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III
1,500-Year Climate Cycle:
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Volume 278, Number 5341, pp. 1257-1266, November 1997)
– Gerard Bond et al.
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5546, pp. 1431-1433, November 2001)
– Richard A. Kerr
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
– Feng Sheng Hu et al.
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, pp. 313-325, November 2002)
– W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad
Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, Volume 26, Number 5, pp. 471-473, May 1998)
– Ian D. Campbell et al.
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature, Volume 438, Issue 70695, pp. 208-211, November 2005)
– Holger Braun et al.
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 8, pp. 3814-3819, April 2000)
– Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf
The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records (PDF)
(Climate of the Past, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
– M. Debret et al.
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp. 17-1, May 2003)
– Stefan Rahmstorf
Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, January 2001)
– Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp. 455-458, May 2002)
– André E. Viau et al.
Cosmic Rays:
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
– Brian A, Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer
Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles
(Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996)
– H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Number 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997)
– Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp. 79-80, January 2000)
– Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030, November 1998)
– Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic rays and Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 93, Numbers 1-2, pp. 175-185, July 2000)
– Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic rays and climate: The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp. 4.18-4.22, August 2000)
– E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2, pp. 215-230, November 2000)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 85, Issue 23, pp. 5004-5007, December 2000)
– Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 8, pp. 1527–1530, April 2001)
– Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002)
– Fangqun Yu
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 5, July 2002)
– Nir J. Shaviv
The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth
(New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number D6, pp. AAC 6-1, March 2003)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Solar Influence on Earth’s Climate
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 107, Numbers 1-2, pp. 317-325, April 2003)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Toward a solution to the early faint Sun paradox: A lower cosmic ray flux from a stronger solar wind (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number A12, pp. SSH 3-1, December 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv
Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 16, August 2004)
– I.G. Usoskin, N.Marsh, G.A. Kovaltsov, K.Mursula, O.G. Gladysheva
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate
(Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 6, Number 5, October 2004)
– V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp.1037-1062, November 2004)
– F. Yu
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 484-490, May 2005)
– S.V. Veretenenko, , V.A. Dergachev, P.B. Dmitriyev
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A8, August 2005)
– Nir J. Shaviv
Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 871, 2006)
– Henrik Svensmark
Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 462, Issue 2068, pp. 1221-1233, April 2006)
– R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 127, Numbers 1-4, December 2006)
– K. Scherer, H. Fichtner, T. Borrmann, J. Beer, L. Desorgher, E. Flükiger, H. Fahr, S. Ferreira, U. Langner, M. Potgieter, B. Heber, J. Masarik, N. Shaviv, J. Veizer
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
– Henrik Svensmark
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 353-364, February 2007)
– Charles A. Perrya
Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 463, Number 2078, p 385-396, February 2007)
– Henrik Svensmark et al.
200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
– O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev
On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
– M. G. Ogurtsov
Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 441-450, July 2008)
– Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, Numbers 5-6, November 2007)
– Jasper Kirkby
(International Journal of Global Warming, Volume 1, Numbers 1-2, pp. 57-65, July 2009)
– Reis, A. Heitor, Serrano, Claudia
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 15, August 2009)
– Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark
A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings
(New Phytologist, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp. 545-551, September 2009)
– Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby and John Grace
Solar:
80–120 yr Long-term solar induced effects on the earth, past and predictions
(Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Volume 31, Issues 1-3, pp. 113-122, 2006)
– Shahinaz Moustafa Yousef
A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1767-1778, December 2004)
– Harry van Loona, Gerald A. Meehlb, Julie M. Arblaster
A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
– Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee
A new pathway for communicating the 11-year solar cycle signal to the QBO
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 18, September 2005)
– Eugene C. Cordero, Terrence R. Nathan
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
– Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon
Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
– Ján Veizer
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer
Century-scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 15, August 2004)
– Gregory C. Wiles et al.
Climate cyclicity in late Holocene anoxic marine sediments from the Seymour-Belize Inlet Complex (PDF)
(Marine Geology, Volume 242, Issues 1-3, pp. 123-140, August 2007)
– R. Timothy Patterson, Andreas Prokoph, Eduard Reinhardt, Helen M. Roe
Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 359-362, February 1996)
– Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (PDF)
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
– Feng Sheng Hu et al.
Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
– Oliver K. Manuel
Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95, January 2009)
– Martin Hertzberg
Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D21, November 2004)
– K. Coughlin, K. K. Tung
Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe (PDF)
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 421-430, July 2008)
– Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman
Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, pp. 403-417, February 2002)
– M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 23, pp. 12433-12438, November 2000)
– Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu
Global Temperature Forced by Solar Irradiation and Greenhouse Gases? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 30, Number 6, pp. 349-350, September 2001)
– Wibjörn Karlén
Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007)
– Joan Feynmana
Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 866-870, October 2006)
– H. Svensmark
(Astrophysical Journal, Volume 472, pp. 891, December 1996)
– Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L. Baliunas
Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue D21, November 2006)
– Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Volume 254, Number 5032, pp. 698-700, November 1991)
– E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen
Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254, March 2005)
– William J.R. Alexander et al.
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Volume 49, Number 2, pp. 32–44, June 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse
Long-Period Cycles of the Sun’s Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December 2002)
– M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner
Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940’s (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 91, Issue 21, November 2003)
– Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko
On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia
(The Holocene, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 359-365, 1996)
– Wibjörn Karlén, Johan Kuylenstierna
Once again about global warming and solar activity (PDF)
(Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society, Volume 76, pp. 969, 2005)
– K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, B. Kirov
Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanogrpahy, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 441–456, 1999)
– A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane
Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 181-204, 1999)
– Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5549, pp. 2130-2136, December 2001)
– Gerard Bond et al.
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 5, March 2006)
– N. Scafetta, B. J. West
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2006)
– N. Scafetta, B. J. West
Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 17, Number 7, pp. 925-932, July 1999)
– J. Bochníček, P. Hejda1, V. Bucha, J. Pýcha
Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains
(Geology, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999)
– Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito
Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1167-1172, 2007)
– O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Journal of Coastal Research, Issue 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
– Richard Mackey
Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy The International Journal, Volume 18, Number 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993)
– Friis-Christensen, Eigil
Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994)
(Planetary and Space Science, Volume 55, Issues 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007)
– Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa et al.
Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp. 901-915, May 2002)
– Ronald E. Thresher
Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
– David C. Archibald
Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Volume 284, Number 5412, pp. 305-308, April 1999)
– Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan
Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, pp. 181-184, August 2008)
– Adriano Mazzarella
Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 197-241, October 2005)
– C. De Jager
Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 243-286, October 2005)
– Gerard J. M. Versteegh
Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands
(Science, Volume 292, Number 5520, pp. 1367-1370, May 2001)
– David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson
Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere (PDF)
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp. 147-154, 2005)
– Andrew Mayewski et al.
Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 24-1, February 2003)
– Kunihiko Kodera
Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Number D2, pp. 2835–2844, February 1991)
– George C. Reid
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, January 1998)
– E.W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman
Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 19, Number 4, July 1996)
– S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni, L. Ruggiero
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, December 2006)
– J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 8, April 2007)
– H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood
Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130, January 2009)
– Adriano Mazzarella
Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 535-537, May 1987)
– Karin Labitzke
Sunspots, the QBO and the stratosphere in the North Polar Region – 20 years later
(Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 355-363, June 2006)
– Karin Labitzke et al.
Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region: An Update
(Advances in Global Change Research, Volume 33, pp. 347-357, 2007)
– Karin Labitzke et al.
Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate (PDF)
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
– Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham, Stig E. Friberg
Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 14, July 2007)
– Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, March 2007)
– Adriano Mazzarella
The influence of the 11 yr solar cycle on the interannual–centennial climate variability
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 67, Issues 8-9, pp. 793-805 ,May-June 2005)
– Hengyi Weng
The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp. 1267–1283, April 2007)
– Charles D. Camp, Ka-Kit Tung
(Irish Astronomical Journal, Volume 21, Number 3-4, pp. 251-254, September 1994)
– C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston
The signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 80, Numbers 3-4, pp. 393-410, May 1997)
– K. Labitzke, H. van Loon
The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2, pp. 625-637, January 2001)
– T.I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P.J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood
The Sun’s Role in Regulating the Earth’s Climate Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 25-73, January 2009)
– Richard Mackey
Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159, January 2009)
– Timo Niroma
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue A11, November 2008)
– Nir J. Shaviv
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995)
– K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen
Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp.273, January 1961)
– Stuiver, M.
Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
– J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, September 1997)
– Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark
Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 43, pp. 124-127, 2003)
– V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich
IPCC:
Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936, December 2007)
– Richard S.J. Tol
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– Richard S. Courtney
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 713-719, September 2008)
– Madhav L. Khandekar
The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185, May 2003)
– Ian Castles, David R. Henderson
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible? (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 155–162, August 1998)
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
Kyoto Protocol:
A 2004 View of the Kyoto Protocol
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 505-511, July 2004)
– S. Fred Singer
After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 19-40, 1999)
– Bruce Yandle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766, September 2005)
– Anne, Lauvergeon
Climate policy and uncertainty
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Numbers 5-6, pp. 415-423, November 2001)
– Catrinus J. Jepma
Clouds Over Kyoto (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 57-63, 1998)
– Jerry Taylor
The Role of the IPCC is To Assess Climate Change Not Advocate Kyoto
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 369-373, July 2004)
– Ian Castles
(Nature, Volume 449, Issue 7165, pp. 973-975, October 2007)
– Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner
Socio-Economic:
Best practices in prediction for decision-making: Lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences (PDF)
(Ecology, Volume 84, Number 6, pp. 1351-1358, June 2003)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Richard T. Conant
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 707-711, September 2008)
– Ross McKitrick
Climate Change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation
(Nature, Volume 445, Issue 7128, pp. 597-598, February 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr, Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner, Daniel Sarewitz
Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50, January 1999)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 207-213, January 2009)
– Hans Labohm
Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 733-745, September 2009)
– Keith H. Lockitch
Discounting the Future (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 32, Number 1, pp. 36-40, 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
Environmentalism in the light of Menger and Mises (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Volume 5, Number 2, pp. 3-15, June 2002)
– George Reisman
Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)
– Christopher Monckton
Global Warming and Its Dangers (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 8, Number 4, 2004)
– Jeffrey R. Clark, Dwight R. Lee
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 247-256, 2005)
– David Deming
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 619-632, July 2006)
– David R. Henderson
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2007)
– David R. Henderson
How Serious is the Global Warming Threat?
(Society, Volume 44, Number 5, pp. 45-50, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer
(Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 755-786, June 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 279-302, July 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
Managing Planet Earth; Adaptation and Cosmology (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 19 Number 1, pp. 69-83, 1999 )
– Curtis A. Pendergraft
Mitigation versus compensation in global warming policy (PDF)
(Economics Bulletin, Volume 17, pp. 1-6, December 2001)
– Ross McKitrick
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 797-822, November 2003)
– Indur M. Goklany
Rolling the DICE: William Nordhaus’s Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 14, Number 2, 2009)
– Robert P. Murphy
Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process (PDF)
(Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 275-290, December 2005)
– Ross McKitrick
Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 29 Number 3, pp. 497-521, 2009)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change? (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 11, Number 2, 2006)
– Randall G. Holcombe
Strategies to Enhance Adaptability: Technological Change, Economic Growth and Free Trade (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 30, pp. 427-449, 1995)
– Indur M. Goklany
The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA – Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 941-958, December 2008)
– Ivan Jankovic
The evolution of an energy contrarian
(Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Volume 211, pp. 31-67, November 1996)
– Henry R. Linden
The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)
– Donald W. Miller
The Politicised Science of Greenhouse Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 5, pp. 853-860, September 2004)
– Garth Paltridge
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 763-777, September 2009)
– Paul Driessen
Turning the big knob: An evaluation of the use of energy policy to modulate future climate impacts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 255-275, May 2000)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., R. Klein, D. Sarewitz)
When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist (PDF)
(Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp. 405-417, October 2004)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Stern Review:
Climate Science and the Stern Review (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 8, Number 2, April–June 2007)
– Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen
The Stern Review: A Dual Critique (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 165-232, October–December 2006)
– Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen, Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson, Robert Skidelsky
– Response to Simmonds and Steffen (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 8, Number 2, April–June 2007)
– David Holland, Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, Richard S. Lindzen
Is Stern Review on climate change alarmist?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 521-532, September 2007)
– S. Niggol Seo
The Stern Review on Climate Change: Inconvenient Sensitivities
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 779-798, September 2009)
– Sergey Mityakov, Christof Rühl
Paper Count: 450
Journal Citation List:
AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Ambio
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy & Environment *
Energy Fuels
Energy Sources
Energy The International Journal
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Futures
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
GSA Today
Holocene
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
Irish Astronomical Journal
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Geoscience
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Phytologist
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Paleontological Journal
Paleoceanography
Physical Geography
Physical Review Letters
Physics Letters A
Planetary and Space Science
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation *
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Social Studies of Science
Society
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
The Cato Journal *
The Independent Review
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics Journal
Journal Count: 135
* Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
– EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)
* Regulation is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0147-0590)
– EBSCO; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes
– iCONN; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes (PDF)
– ProQuest; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes
* The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
– EBSCO; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)
– iCONN; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes (PDF)
– ProQuest; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes
Notes – The papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Erratum, Replies and Responses are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.
Resources:
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
The Truth about RealClimate.org
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer 70-647 online training program for all of your 642-642 and 640-816 exam needs.
Brilliant, many thanks to Andrew – and to WUWT for all the good work. I am often asked “what exactly is the case against AGW?”, and of course the full answer is too long to give verbally. This will help a lot, but I think we have reached the point where we really do need a comprehensive statement, covering all the various angles, in a single url. I would be happy to participate in putting it together.
Great resource, thanks!
Don’t you just love the smell of evidence in the morning.
Thanks Andrew
Fantastic effort, looks like I’m out of a job, still I’ve got a gold plated pension.
James Hansen.
An excellent compiled resource. However, I believe you have missed an important paper by Cazanave on sea level rise: “A re-evaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and argo.”
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
This paper describes how the steric component of rate of sea level rise has fallen dramatically since 2003.
It is important that this whole article be eventually archived under a special, easy to find heading. As far as I know, this would be the only reference library of sceptical climate science in existence.
Uh, how about not including the entire list on the front page!!! Yikes…
Well, that was Short and to the point 😉
It does not matter, the politics is settled. The Australian PM is stroking it all the way to the UN bank in Singapore buy taking a horse drawn carriage trip with his wife, showing, to the world, the “lead” apparently in the “climate change” fight.
These multimillonare (His wife’s money) pollies, they have no idea!
The first paper, Craig Loehle and non tree ring reconstructions, was very informative in describing the problems found to exist with tree ring problems. I hadn’t realised before, but apparently, tree ring growth can not only increase with temperatures, but actually decrease with even higher temperatures as evaporation leads to a water limiting situation. My own take on this, is that those hockey stick proxies that show narrow tree rings during the MWP, may indicate very warm conditions – the exact opposite to the standard dogma.
Ok, 1 paper done, only another 399 to read.
Thanks for the hard work, Andrew. An invaluable resource for when the usual lie about the “lack of peer-review papers challenging AGW” is trotted out.
So much for the “consensus” and “the science is settled” mantra.
That’s a load of papers.
APEC MEETING agrees, No Copenhagen Treaty.
Obama not happy.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/apec-meeting-agrees-no-copenhagen.html
Wow. Thanks for this Anthony/Andrew. What a fantastic resource!
Can someone forward this to John Kerry?
In this clip below you can see him trying to grill Ken Green from AEI. Basically, Kerry was acting for the cameras. He has to know these kinds of peer-reviewed studies exist, but claimed he never saw them.
mcates,
John Kerry met his wife Teresa Heinz at an Earth Day rally, and they married a year after her husband, Sen John Heinz [of ketchup fame], died. Teresa inherited control of the Heinz charitable trust, and completely changed its focus from its previous charity work to environmental causes. She is chairman of the trust now, and she is an AGW believer. Teresa is a billionaire, so if it seems that John Kerry is a sock puppet, now you know why.
Has this issue devolved into a; “My consensus can whip your consensus” argument?
If it were ten times that number, it wouldn’t matter in the slightest to the the Alarmist pseudo-scientists, frauds, political hacks, and assorted carpetbaggers. Their standard-bearers for “science”, after all are Michael Mann and his hockey schtick, Jimmy “death trains” Hansen, and of course, the all-knowing, and wisdom-filled IPCC, who simply assume that man’s evil C02 is driving climate (which way, up down, or sideways isn’t important).
so where is the list that en green promised?
And as usual the AGW fanatics will counter that:
“those papers where funded by big oil”
“those peer reviews don’t matter since they are not in a ‘climate paper’ ”
“but why can’t those Deniers please think of the chil…..planet”
because sadly for most AGW’ers its religion and not science.
No amount of scientific evidence (or even a new ice age) will make them change their mind.
Why the inclusion of papers positing a CO2 lag towards interglacials? That doesn’t contradict AGW. Jim Hansen co-authored a paper years ago verifying the lag. It’s the mainstream view.
Thank you Andrew and WUWT for this very helpful list.
I am just diving in and may be some time.
Curiousgeorge (05:31:58) :
Has this issue devolved into a; “My consensus can whip your consensus” argument?
More like “there is no consensus.” Or, “there is a consensus only if you exclude certain journals, because they are not peer reviewed by The Team.”
Everyone is welcome.
As for Kerry notice he mentions the mythical “thousands of scientists” but only names John Holdren and Jim Hansen… telling.
Lassen ’91 presented solar cycle length correlation with global temperature. Lassen ’99 updated that work and found the correlation had since broken down. Lassen ’91 is included in the above list. Lassen ’99 is not.
The paper “Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming” says calcification decrease due to ocean acidification will be canceled out by an increase in calcification due to future ocean warming. Of course if you are a skeptic you don’t accept any such future warming, so it would seem the paper is evidence for coral reef decline rather than being skeptical of it.
Impressive work and a great source of knowlwdge. Thank you.
These sources have to be brought to the public, set against the “not peeer-reviewed, no climate scientists” argumment of the warmers.
Checking reader comments accompanying latest climate-related articles in German Online mdia, it turns out that about 90% are sceptic, understanding quite good what’s going on behind the curtains. Few warmist comments are on a very low environmental level (“don’t you think of your grandchildrens’ future” … bullshit).
Means to me it is important to give those 90% as many sources as possible to learn more. We don’t need believers.
“Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of
ocean warming”
says…
“Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.”
There is another set of papers having to do with species cycles related to weather cycles, and papers related to intrinsic weather pattern variability not being noisily random but rather oscillating in non-random as well as random ways. These papers have a weather-related emphasis thus may be overlooked by climate enthusiasts. I prefer weather-related papers since I see weather as the predominant issue of concern and has the greatest potential of discovery, where climate is relatively fixed and based on address.
“Sauce for the goose” -Mr. Spock, et. al.
Andrew
Absolutely terrific. Although it takes up a lot of the home page. Might I suggest you reference most of it to this page.
re Poptech:
The only reason it doesn’t suggest “large and potentially catastrophic decreases in the future” is because they found future warming would prevent those catastrophic decreases:
“Observational studies show clearly that increasing SST and decreasing Warag have opposing effects for coral reef calcification. We combine output from a climate model with empirical measurements of coral reef calcification with
respect to both Warag and sea surface temperature (SST) to project coral reel calcification rates under climate change.”
So as I said, this paper’s conclusions are only valid if you accept future climate model projections of warming. If I am to believe skeptics that model warming projections are wrong, then this paper is actually evidence for a decrease in calcification.
The only mention of the word “catastrophic” in that papers is in the statement I quoted refuting other claims of “potentially catastrophic decreases in the future.”
This is contradictory to the claims that global warming will have a negative effect on coral reefs. It clearly says that ocean warming will stimulate coral reef calcification!
You don’t have to accept future climate model projections of warming to accept the contradiction in alarmist claims.
Excellent!!
I suggest you create a separate heading under the masthead, like “Tips & Notes,” called something like Papers of Note, and put all these under it. Then add to the list as others suggest more and the moderators or Andrew verify them.
This will make WUWT not just a vital read for the issues, but an important resource for Rationalists. This is too important to require a search through the Archives in the future.
/Mr Lynn
Wow, it’ll take a while to chew through all that.
I thought that EVERYONE agreed that the “science is settled”?
Looks like there are more than a few dissenting voices out there.
This may be the answer to Stephen Schneider and his pathetic grasp of scientific reality on this issue.
………………………………….
May 24, 2009
Comments On “The Global Warming Debates: Stephen Schneider” In The May 24 2009 Issue Of The Examiner.Com By Thomas Fuller
Stephen Schneider warns skeptical scientists he could ‘slaughter them in public debate!‘
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/
comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/
Written by Thomas Fuller who is the San Francisco Policy Environmental Policy Examiner reporter, this interview is an excellent example of the failure to present a balanced presentation of the climate science issues.
The reporter asked the following question
“More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.”
First, the reporter erroneously presented the WUWT perspective as a “skeptic” website.
Steve Schneider, unfortunately, chose not only to fail to correct this error, but demeaned the scientific value of these websites.
His reply is
“They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them–a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings–not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute–but with those with real knowledge–because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.”
……………………………………
Far from skeptics avoiding public debate, has anyone else noticed how global warming alarmists are determined to avoid such debates with anyone who knows what they are talking about? The media conspire with them to ignore reporting any other scientific evidence other than the Gore doctrine.
I agree that it contradicts other papers that find coral reefs will decline in the coming century. But it is definitely not skeptical of AGW as the paper’s argument for increased reef calcification hinges on AGW being true.
I just learnt from the paper in the list titled “EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN” that the standard solar model is wrong (apparently it’s an “obsolete model of the Sun”) and the sun’s core is actually made of iron.
Fantastic! I’ve forwarded this post to my intimates, along with the really good Singapore announcement ( Ron de Haan (03:54:07) : ), as soon as I saw it/them.
Of course, this list is already rather in need of updating! So many papers have been getting published recently that this list many need a dedicated staff to keep it current!
Encouragement all ’round!
Forgot…of course everyone will email/fax this list to their political reps – right?!
Ha! I just checked Andrew’s site and found him buried in updates, already! Keep him busy. I hope the review will be adequate, for credibility.
Um. I’ve identified several papers in this list which are “Viewpoints”, “Colloqium papers”, “Commentary”, “Correspondence” – most of those don’t count as peer reviewed.
Energy & Environment is rather dubious overall, though I doubt the followers of this website will buy that.
There are fantasies like Chilingar in the list, and journals publishing way outside their area of expertise (Energy & Fuels on the carbon cycle?).
There are papers based on now-obsolete data (de Freitas, 2002, back in the days before the satellite trend-corrections).
There are papers that aren’t actually skeptical (Shindell et al?).
Socold you missed the note: “The papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of”.
The debate is not just if AGW is real but if it is real will it cause a catastrophy. The coral reef paper would fall under “environmental effects of”.
The two Manuel papers are theoretically very radical and not a common skeptical position on solar influence of the climate but they are skeptical of AGW and are thus included in the list.
The first paper on the list I looked at has already been disproven.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.1693-1701, December 2007) – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer.
B. D. Santer et al.published an analysis shortly afterwards in the same journal showing that the tropospheric temperature measurements were fully in agreement with the models. See Int. J. Climatol. 28: 1703–1722 (2008)
If the first paper I look at is already proven to be incorrect, how reliable are the other 449?
Hmm, reviewing some of the comments so far I would swear we have some sockpuppets playing their games… must have struck a nerve. Defending their grants, eh?
Marcus (08:15:15),
What, exactly, is “dubious” about E&E?
Your critique is similar to those who say they found the name ‘Michael Jackson’ on the OISM Petition and trumpet, “AHA! A fake name!” As if that negates the other 31,000+ scientists who signed the petition. [And as it turned out, that Michael Jackson – not the entertainer – was an actual signer.]
Even if I agree with your assessment of a handful of papers [which I don’t necessarily], that still leaves well over 400 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW.
As Einstein said, it only takes one fact to refute a hypothesis.
Thanks very much Andrew.
People should bookmark this.
Marcus, commetaries are not included in the paper count (as noted) as there are a lot more listings besides papers such as Comments, Erratum, Replies and Responses ect…
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
Shindell’s paper supports a solar influence on climate.
“Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small”
Agree a handy bibliography of useful references would be highly useful. It would be a good place to keep track of new research. By making the research easy to find, you would deflate the assertion that there is no opposing views in the literature.
Larry
“Smokey (05:30:27) :
mcates,
John Kerry met his wife Teresa Heinz at an Earth Day rally, and they married a year after her husband, Sen John Heinz [of ketchup fame], died. Teresa inherited control of the Heinz charitable trust, and completely changed its focus from its previous charity work to environmental causes. She is chairman of the trust now, and she is an AGW believer. Teresa is a billionaire, so if it seems that John Kerry is a sock puppet, now you know why.”
Eating Heinz products produces a lot of gases. We should boycott their products with their support if they think gases cause catastrophic climate change.
The paper “EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN” speaks for itself in terms of the dubious nature of Energy and Environment. I recommend people on the fence who are familiar with scientific publications take a look at that “paper”
Socold the peer-review process does not determine what is scientific fact. There is nothing dubious about publishing radical new theories, it is up to the author to defend their paper. Peer-Review is not about excluding new theories (at least it is not supposed to be) nor does this have anything to do with the contents of other papers being published in the journal.
Hmmm… just picking out a few at random … can somebody explain how Tsonis and Swanson [2007] can be possibly described as ‘Supporting Skepticism of AGW caused Global Warming’ when it explicitly acknowledges the greenhouse gas warming, and first subtracts it…
“Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st
century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse
gases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature
(Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in
behavior.
And describing an open letter from Viscount Monckton to two US Senators as a peer-reviewed paper is stretching it a bit, no?
Also ‘Replies and Responses are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.’. It is common academic practice when citing a paper to mention any replies or comments. A comment to the Coral Calcification paper being discussed above for example found it seriously flawed…
We agree that temperature will play an important role in future coral reef calcification;
this point is not new, and we find the authors’
statement that ‘‘Our analysis suggests that annual average
coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean
warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by
about 35% by 2100’’ to be seriously flawed. Many of
their critical assumptions are not supported by existing
information on the limits of coral growth and calcification,
present day coral reef distributions, and temperature
responses.[…]
Surely citing the paper and not the comment is misleading? Perhaps a more valuable resource would be a list of actual peer-reviewed academic papers with comments and replies, that genuinely do support scepticism, and were not published by a journal with a ‘controversial’ peer-review process, following a political agenda.
That would be a somewhat shorter list, of course.
Phil Clarke (08:52:46):
“Hmmm… just picking out a few at random…”
Really? You just picked those completely at random?
Or did you furiously scan the list, hoping to find a few papers that you could hope to challenge?
Keep in mind that there are zero peer reviewed papers that conclusively prove that human produced CO2 is the cause of global warming. Zero.
And regarding your interest in comments, this link should convince anyone that the peer review system is tightly controlled by people with an agenda, protecting their turf.
Hmmmm (Part 2)….., if Replies and Comments are not included, why is the second entry a reply to a comment on the first entry?
Marcus (08:15:15) :
Um. I’ve identified several papers in this list which are “Viewpoints”, “Colloqium papers”, “Commentary”, “Correspondence” – most of those don’t count as peer reviewed….
Energy & Environment is rather dubious overall, …
There are fantasies like Chilingar in the list…
There are papers based on now-obsolete data ….
There are papers that aren’t actually skeptical …
Congratulations, you are a peer reviewer, Marcus, and your commentary will help do what the peer-review process is supposed to do–make this list more solidly support its claims, or, on the other hand, even perhaps demolish it. Well, that’s science.
By the way, if one were to look through the literature used to buttress AWG, what you’d find is that claims of absolute certainty in the popular press give way to measured, modest claims in the professional journals. I think this list can be augmented and cleaned up in a manner to make a very nice and useful resource.
Phil, Tsonis and Swanson [2007] gives an alternate explanation for the climate shift in the late 70s that has nothing to do with greenhouse warming.
Interesting you make claimes of “common practices” yet fail to do this yourself!
Added to the list:
Reply to comment by Kleypas et al. on ‘‘Coral reef calcification and
climate change: The effect of ocean warming’’
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/publications/McNeil_et_al,.2005.pdf
Surely citing the comment and not the reply to the comment is misleading?
This is great, but appears to be a response to the accusation that there is no peer reviewed science in opposition to the AGW theory. Someone on the AGW side makes an outrageous statement and then it is up to someone on the rational side to spend a great deal of time and effort to gather the evidence to refute it. The burden here is totally on the wrong side!
What I would like to see is a list of peer reviewed papers that actually provide physical evidence (not descriptions of fantasy models built on circular arguments) that increasing CO2 is a dangerous threat to humanity and the biosphere. So far…I haven’t seen any papers that do that. If there were, then the IPCC would rely on them instead of aggressively ignoring all the evidence for natural climate variability and then proclaiming that “climate change must be from CO2 because we can’t think of anything else!”
(The IPCC argument is so lame that it should have been laughed out of existence before it was published. Its like someone who claims the Phillies didn’t win the world series because their new neighbor is a Yankees fan and a witch, and they can’t think of any other reason to explain how the Phillies lost. Then proclaiming that it is up to everyone else to prove their neighbor is not a witch are concede the argument.)
Sorry for shouting, but…IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE IT! The attitude from AGW supporters that it is up to skeptics to prove them wrong is so sick and convoluted that I wonder why we fall for it at all!
They have had 20 years and billions of tax dollars to provide us with some physical evidence that changes in CO2 are controlling global climate, but have only come up with circular arguments and circumstantial evidence that doesn’t even fit their models!
Where’s the beef, you AGW people? Where is your list of 450 papers showing physical evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change now and for at least the last 10,000 years? Don’t give me the papers written by three monkeys (see no natural variability, hear no natural variability and speak no natural variability) and offer that as proof of CO2’s guilt. That is just stupid!
Humanity use to blame the gods for bad weather, because they couldn’t explain it any other way. They were ignorant, so they unscientifically made up something that momentarily ‘explained’ what they observed (but not at all consistently), plus offered them a mechanism for keeping the ‘lessor’ human population in line! How are AGW supporters any different?
Forward the list to Senator John Kerry. Since he thought there are ZERO peer-reviewed papers skeptical of global warming, he PROMISED he would put any in the record!
Wow, I think I wore out the sole of my shoes jogging down to the bottom of the page here to post a comment.
…. now I forgot what I was going to say….
Tom P (08:25:56) :
Alas, it was quickly shown that the last traces of dubious statistics of Santer disappeared, when the period extending beyond 1999 was used.
Tropics trend near surface:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop.html
Tropics trend mid-troposphere:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop-m.html
Santer says, that statistically the latter curve rises two to three times as steep as the surface which is obviously BS.
Tom P (08:25:56),
A refutation of Santer has been submitted for publication.
– The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.2196v1
Wow, the list is pretty impressive – thanks to Andrew! It’s “Oreskes done right”. 😉
TomP,
So if someone writes a more recent paper which disagrees with Douglas et al you consider that a conclusive disproval? I wished it were that simple in science. Just read the blog comments on: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/temperatures-of-the-tropical-troposphere-chad-brings-santer-up-to-2008/
Lubos, the list is extremely impressive. Until you dig deeper into it, that is.
OT: I just watched the C-span clip w/ sen. John Kerry and the only thing that pops into my mind is that I’m sooooo frigging happy that idiot didn’t win the election in ’04!!!!
Dear Neven, I won’t study every single paper on the list but I know roughly 100 of papers in the list in detail, and these papers certainly do represent what they’re claimed to represent – papers with insights or opinions running against the “consensus”, whether or not the latter word is defined by the IPCC or Al Gore.
Otherwise I would never claim that all papers on the list are 100% correct, high-quality papers or that they support 100% of a skeptic’s position. There are surely differences and there are various problems with various papers – but that’s the case of nearly all papers in the world.
At any rate, the people who claim that there exist no peer-reviewed printed results that disagree with what is being presented as the “consensus” (which is not well-defined notion, but even at this ill-defined status, it is self-evidently flawed) must live outside reality. They mentally live in a religious sect that denies the reality and that needs to deny reality in order to locally sustain their otherwise unsustainable belief system.
you mean like people who claim there is “no evidence” for manmade global warming must live outside reality?
I can agree with both cases.
In light of the current discussion, what does if mean when, say, the Journal of Climate:
http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/journals/jcli/jcli_eds.html
has a Chief Editor, Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a hysterical AGW advocate/nut, enough so that he’s penned his own version of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” called “Keeping Our Cool”
http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670068005,00.html
Here’s a description:
“Monster wildfires in Australia, January golfers in PEI, ruined fruit crops in California, snowless ski runs in Switzerland, starving polar bears in the North, devastated trees in Stanley Park. Climate change is no longer a vague threat. The climate change we are in store for over the next few centuries will be larger and occur faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Brilliantly researched, Keeping Our Cool is a comprehensive and engaging examination and explanation of global warming, with a specific emphasis on climate change in Canada. In an engaging and accessible way, Weaver explains the levels of greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize the climate and offers solutions and a path toward a sustainable future.”
Now, how unbiased will the Journal of Climate be when reviewing paper with an anti-AGW perspective?
And I’m sure if we Googled the remaining editors and associate editors, we find similar levels of pro-AGW advocacy.
And this is just one of the many climate-related “scientific” journals…
Lubos, everybody lives in a religious sect. It is not for us to know objective reality. The key is to understand why you chose your particular religious sect. You chose yours probably because of your country’s recent history (with perhaps some personal experience involved as well). I chose mine because I really dislike the idea that injustice, ignorance and ugliness go unpunished because of the way our culture has been set up. My belief is that this set-up is not only causing AGW, but a whole array of other global problems that could very well mean that in the near future a lot of people won’t have it as good as they have it now.
In what journals were your 100 papers publicised and how many times have they been referenced afterwards?
PT – Swanson himself wrote –
What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond
Not a lot of support for ‘scepticism’ there.
Chris Schoneveld et al
the problem as I see it is that Andrew does not mention that Douglass’s results are in dispute. He simply includes it in the list as a peer-reviewed skeptic paper. For all the reader knows, it could be the undisputed state of research, or it could be already long debunked. There is no way to know without researching the literature.
How are we supposed to know if any of the other 449 items in the list are any value at all, if the first one we look at turns out to be disputed?
In this respect, this compilation is no different to the data cherry picking that GW skeptics are so fond of quoting.Instead of simply cherry picking data points, he cherry picks his papers. We can certainly look forward to the usual op-eds quoting it without any further comment or research.
Neven (10:41:10):
“Lubos, everybody lives in a religious sect. It is not for us to know objective reality. The key is to understand why you chose your particular religious sect.”
That statement borders on the ridiculous. Science is our attempt to understand how reality works. Science progresses via the Scientific Method. When the alarmist crowd has no facts they always seem to resort to arguments like Neven’s.
Skepticism isn’t a ‘religious sect.’ It is simply the questioning of hypotheses, until those without a sound basis in empirical facts are discarded. What remains is as close to scientific truth as we can get.
And skepticism has shown its value. Our health, standard of living, quality of life, and life span are all the result of the Scientific Method in action. Without skeptics, humanity would still be using witch doctors to treat sickness.
Smokey, you are not a skeptic. The biggest religious sect is the one that consists of people who think they do not belong to a religious sect.
This isn’t just about ‘questioning hypotheses’, it’s about risk management.
“Peer reviewed”, yes, but have they been “adjusted” yet???
Adam Grey (05:56:29) :Why the inclusion of papers positing a CO2 lag towards interglacials? That doesn’t contradict AGW. Jim Hansen co-authored a paper years ago verifying the lag. It’s the mainstream view.
Well it may not be obvious to you…let me explain. In order for CO2 to be a major driver of climate (this is necessary if you hold the view that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are dangerous and must be limited) then CO2 changes must precede climate changes and NOT follow them.
It is pretty obvious that if CO2 follows temperature increase and if you assume that CO2 causes further increased temperatures then you have a situation of run away temperatures where it just gets hotter and hotter…
Clearly none of this has happened. Clearly none of this makes sense if you believe CO2 is a major driver of warming in the climate.
Therefore proof that temperature increases occur BEFORE CO2 increases is strong evidence that CO2 (whatever role it plays) is more likely a minor rather than a major factor and can, for all intents and purposes, be ignored.
Neven (11:03:14), you are mistaken. Scientific skepticism is the basis for my questioning of the CO2=AGW conjecture. If you want to convince me that your hypothesis is valid, simply provide empirical facts measuring the temperature change attributable to human emissions of CO2. They must be replicable and falsifiable. If you can, you will be the first to be able to do so.
The alarmist crowd hates scientific skeptics, because skeptics demand evidence, while climate alarmists are content with their beliefs. Lacking real world facts, it’s easy to understand why Neven would lean toward a pseudo-religious argument.
Smokey, you cannot be convinced, no matter what I do. Reading your comments for the past year or two has made me quite certain of it. I hope others see this too.
Neven’s personal attacks are exactly what we have come to expect from the alarmist contingent when they are unable to provide empirical data and measurements to support their claims.
To repeat: I am open to changing my mind, if anyone can provide replicable, testable and falsifiable data measuring the temperature change caused by human emissions of CO2. That should not be difficult — if the CO2=CAGW conjecture is valid.
The alarmist crowd hates scientific skeptics, because skeptics demand evidence, while climate alarmists are content with their beliefs.
this is false. the blind acceptance of this list demonstrates a serious lack of scepticism among those who post comments here.
REPLY: Go away “sod” you’ve been told before your views aren’t welcome here.
“How that “seed of doubt Iraq” blog working out for you?
For readers, “sod” is a hate America troll from Germany, he’s the worst kind of troll there is. His own blog failed, because it was based on a false premise, so now he spews elsewhere. – Anthony
The biggest religious sect is the one that consists of people who think they do not belong to a religious sect.
Which would be the fanatic alarmist Warmists! 🙂
Jeremy:
No. Absent humans burning lots of fossil fuels, the mechanisms for the very fast release of significant quantities of CO2 are probably few and far between. And, the most potent one is probably some warming of the oceans.
The fact that noone has been around to perform the exact experiment that we are currently performing does not mean that CO2 is not a major driver of climate and, in fact, the very tight coupling of CO2 and temperature going back 750,000 years is strongly suggestive of a coupling that goes in both directions.
No. It does not imply that at all. Let’s say that the temperature increase was such 1 C of rise causes the release of enough CO2 to raise the temperature an additional 1/3 C. Then, that 1/3 C rise will result in enough CO2 release to raise the temperature and additional 1/9 C and so on. This infinite geometric series (1 + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + …) converges to 1.5 C and, in this example, CO2 is responsible for 0.5 C or 1/3 of the temperature rise. (In fact, I chose these numbers to do that since, on the basis of estimates of the radiative forcings involved, it is generally believed that CO2 is in fact responsible for about 1/3 of the global temperature rise between the glacial periods and interglacials. It is also believed to play an important role in synchronizing the climate change in the two hemispheres, since the Milankovitch Oscillations tend to produce changes in insolation that lead to very little change in global mean forcing but do change the distribution of the forcing between hemispheres and during different seasons.)
Smokey: Of course, Neven is absolutely 100% correct. Calling yourself a “skeptic” does not make you a “skeptic”. Usually, skeptics are defined by demanding evidence for arguments in both directions. Someone who accepts arguments, no matter how bad, when they agree with his preconceptions and then ignores evidence, no matter how strong, when they disagree with his preconceptions is not a “skeptic” in any realistic use of the word.
Juraj V. says:
No…There is a reason why noone, not even Spencer and Christy themselves, looks at T_2 for evidence of whether warming is occurring and that is because while the weighting function for T_2 is centered in the mid-stratosphere, it is contaminated by the fact that its weighting function has a significant tail into the stratosphere where there is very significant cooling predicted (due to both greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion) and observed.
In fact, there is some debate as to whether even the T_2LT (lower troposphere) trend is free from contamination from the stratosphere. Fu et al. believe it is contaminated and came up with a method of de-contaminating it that results in a larger temperature trend. Spencer and Christy argue that Fu’s method overcorrects for the stratospheric contamination. As far as I know (having admittedly not kept up with it in detail), this issue remains unsettled.
Neven, maybe you can explain the lack of correlation here? Remember, according to IPCC, warming since mid century is unprecedented, “very likely” caused by emitted greenhouse gases and most pronounced in Arctic.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Greenlandan.html
As Chesterton wrote, if people stop believing in God, they will believe in any stupidity.
This isn’t just about ‘questioning hypotheses’, it’s about risk management.
And herein lies the problem. The battle between both sides in this argument is not just about the science, it’s about the forcing a potentially damaging political solution that may be worse than the projected problem. How can you have real risk management if only one side, the warmist / alarmists, control the official information arm of all things climate change, the IPCC. They issue delphic proclamations based on only the science they themselves proclaim to matter. It’s completely self serving. The 85 climate scientists who are leaned on to decide what is the best science in this field are the same 85 scientists who both publish papers AND effectively act as a gatekeeper to make sure anything, even those peer reviewed published papers such as those on this list are never entered into the equations that deal with risk assessment and risk management.
How can you have proper risk management if the risk is overhyped?
Not Amused (09:40:30) :
Wow, I think I wore out the sole of my shoes jogging down to the bottom of the page here to post a comment.
…. now I forgot what I was going to say…
LOL!–That’s happened to me more than once!
Neven said
“In what journals were your 100 papers publicised and how many times have they been referenced afterwards?”
I don’t know Neven, how many times has Mann’s and Briffa’s work whose papers were published in “high impact” journals been referenced? Several you say?
Then there is Steig on the cover of Nature and so forth.
Is fluff really that important to you?
Great compilation !
More than a tip of the Hatlo hat to Andrew and Popular Technology. Great site that hits many of my anti-buttons.
“Someone who accepts arguments, no matter how bad, when they agree with his preconceptions and then ignores evidence, no matter how strong, when they disagree with his preconceptions is not a “skeptic” in any realistic use of the word.”
No, we call them alarmists round here.
Now ask Joel Shore if there is evidence indicating surface station thermometers are reliable measurements 🙂
See Joel, it works both ways. Let it all hang out. Cite the evidence the near surface temperatures are warm biased. Can you muster up the strength?
TomP says:
“How are we supposed to know if any of the other 449 items in the list are any value at all, if the first one we look at turns out to be disputed?”
Tom,
I’ve read some and I’m reading others. I’d suggest that as a way to know if any of the 450 items on the list are “any value at all”. This is a compliation of articles, not a review of articles.
Thank you Andrew for the compilation and Anthony for posting it.
Tom P (08:25:56) :
If the first paper I look at is already proven to be incorrect, how reliable are the other 449?
That paper was never ‘proven to be incorrect’.
There are, however, lots of problems with the Mann Hockey Stick. Upon further review the officials changed the call.
Dear Dr. (An honorary title?)…”Cite the evidence the near surface temperatures are warm biased..”
Ahem, cough…try this on for size –
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
I think the document does a pretty good job showing the “warm bias” brought about by poor siting of surface stations.
Thanks again to WUWT for providing us with another fabulous resource. Terrific.
For the sake of alarmists browsing here, let me be clear:
This list ANYTHING BUT complete.
(This note is not a shot at the list developer.)
Mike Jonas (01:58:59) : “I am often asked “what exactly is the case against AGW?”, and of course the full answer is too long to give verbally.”
Whilst climate science gets very complex very quickly, I find the recent lack of correlation (much less causation) between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the flatlined temperatures over the last 10 years to be a simple fact everyone can understand.
as well as the Ordivician ice age when atmospheric CO2 was 11 times higher then today.
lack of hurricane activity
John Edmondson (02:16:52) –
Don’t you just love the smell of cold hard facts in the morning.
Tom P (10:53:09) :
No comment was submitted on the Douglas paper because that would allow a reply from Douglas et al. A refutation of the Santer “dispute” has been submitted however:
The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.2196v1
The existence of a “dispute” does not make a paper invalid, this is the typical propaganda RealClimate.org tries to claim.
I have no problem with religion; it’s authoritarian theocracies that pose real risks.
As for the “threat” of global warming being golf in January, I must demur from the weeping and gnashing of teeth. The rest of Dr. Andrew Weaver’s list of AGW dangers are equally absurd. Devastated trees in Stanley Park!!!! Complete idiocy.
Idiocracies are just as bad as theocracies. In fact, they are much the same thing.
The battle between both sides in this argument is not just about the science, it’s about the forcing a potentially damaging political solution that may be worse than the projected problem.
Claiming that a political solution for AGW would be worse than AGW itself smacks of alarmism, if only for the fact that one of the side effects would be a decrease in dependency on dwindling resources. The US needs to get some of its dignity back, but it will need another Pearl Harbor – like the neocons put it poetically – to get everybody’s ass in gear.
This ‘Pearl Harbor’ could be AGW, it could be Peak Oil, but whatever it is, something better wake the American people up soon to the notion that they are unwittingly being kept hostage by a system that promotes infinite growth in a finite world. A system that wants to keep them hooked on fossil fuels and a debt-based financial system. A system that is stealing their money and killing their young men in illegitimate wars to keep those juices flowing in one direction: to the ultra-rich elite.
Watts Up With That won’t be covering this news. Be it on purpose or not, WUWT is a propaganda outlet – just as bad as the Gorists – to keep things exactly the way they are: unsustainable. Anthony hides behind his solar panels and his electric golf car, but if he’d be puzzled by things only half as much as he claims he is, he’d have understood a long time ago that all his actions achieve is a postponement of the transition towards the modern energy era. Postpone too long and there won’t be anything to postpone. Anthony either doesn’t care or he’s too addicted to all the attention he’s getting.
How can you have real risk management if only one side, the warmist / alarmists, control the official information arm of all things climate change, the IPCC.
If this were true, things would have been settled long ago. It’s the tenacity of PR firms that previously did one hell of a job for the tobacco industry and the likes of Anthony, Glenn Beck and Sen. Inhofe that keeps things as they are: not going anywhere. Which suits the interests of certain elitist parties just fine. And it suits human nature in general fine as well. People aren’t too keen to give up the illusion and comfort of their religious sect, especially after they have been programmed with it for several generations. In the US the definition of freedom nowadays is ‘to be able to do whatever the hell it is you want to do and not be held accountable for the consequences’. That mentality flashes at me like a neon sign when I read the comments at this blog.
Your ‘side’ is the ‘side’ that’s winning, so stop whining. For every warmist I know, I know at least 10 people who are ‘skeptic’. Without ever researching anything. That’s how easy it is to confuse people and halt any action whatsoever.
Calling yourself a “skeptic” does not make you a “skeptic”. Usually, skeptics are defined by demanding evidence for arguments in both directions.
You know, that is my problem with this site and also with Steve McIntyre. Never, not even once, have I seen one article criticizing arguments from the ‘contrarian’ side, no matter how nutty (for instance Monckton, or Erl Happs latest piece) or flat out wrong (for instance Plimer) or interesting material for auditing (for instance Henrik Svensmarks work or Pielke sr.’s work). If this blog is skeptical, then I am one of the Apostles. In my opinion, WUWT is as untrustworthy as Al Gore’s motives.
Reply: I’m letting this through despite the personal attacks on Anthony. Anthony may remove in the future. Neven, we allow all points of view here, but a certain degree of decorum is expected. You are dancing on the wall here. ~ charles the moderator
If you are looking for a fantastic ressource concerning ‘Global warming’, look for ‘The Anti Man-Made Global Warming Resource’:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
It contains thousands of links to skeptical articles and also to some Peer-Reviewed Papers (Look for the section ‘Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming’)
Is it certain that all 450 are peer-reviewed?
Is it certain that all 450 are peer-reviewed?
Do you really think ‘Commentary’ and ‘Reply’ is a peer-reviewed paper? Of course you don’t.
It shouldn’t take you long to see the holes in this list. About 3 papers is all you need (the Balling is a speech, E & E isn’t a real journal (where is it on ISI? The impact factor??).
Best,
D
Neven – liberals, progressives and socialists never ending quest to control the lives of free men will always fail.
There is no energy crisis and no such catastrophe on the horizon so long as market forces are allowed to operate. The only energy crises in history have been orchestrated by economically illiterate government central planners, such as the 70s when government price controls on oil caused shortages and rationing.
I have met many economically illiterates such as yourself and you all share the same delusional political ideology, attempting to force your ignorance on the rest of us.
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Despite Popular Belief, The World is Not Running Out of Oil, Scientist Says (University of Washington)
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=27554
Political Peak Oil (Reason)
http://reason.com/archives/2007/01/05/political-peak-oil
New research is showing that oil may be much more plentiful then we know,
Hydrocarbons in Deep Earth? (Carnegie Institution)
http://www.ciw.edu/news/hydrocarbons_deep_earth
“Tom P (08:25:56) :
The first paper on the list I looked at has already been disproven.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp.1693-1701, December 2007) – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer.”
I wonder why a paper such as this would omit the most recent 8 years of data ?
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick had no trouble finding this data and showing that it does support the original paper criticising models:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.2196.pdf
Could it be that Santer et al (and perhaps Tom P), have political motives ?
“Do you really think ‘Commentary’ and ‘Reply’ is a peer-reviewed paper? Of course you don’t. “
Do you bother to read the comments? I have already stated that comments and replies are not included in the paper count.
“It shouldn’t take you long to see the holes in this list. About 3 papers is all you need (the Balling is a speech, E & E isn’t a real journal (where is it on ISI? The impact factor??).”
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
It is irrelevant if the Thomson Reuters corporation chooses to index a journal or not, other companies that offer similar services (EBSCO) clearly does.
Impact factor is subjective and denotes nothing more than an attempt at popularity not scientific validity.
[snip Neven – this time you’ve stepped over the line, arguing about the US Army and Iraq has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. All further posts snipped, Penalty box for you. Probably just another persona of uber-troll “sod” who tries to make everything about Iraq becuase his own blog on that subject failed miserably- Anthony]
socold (07:42:37) :
“I agree that it contradicts other papers that find coral reefs will decline in the coming century. But it is definitely not skeptical of AGW as the paper’s argument for increased reef calcification hinges on AGW being true.”
But, it suggests the reason for declining reefs is to be found elsewhere, and perhaps ameliorative action could be taken if we were not sidetracked by a debate over a non-cause.
This is the real harm of the monomania called Anthropogenic Global Warming: that other, more pressing problems, for which real and immediately practical solutions exist , are being shunted to the sideline. See Lomborg, Bjorn, et al.
Or, rather, it suggests that AGW is not a threat to the coral reefs. Sorry. As others have noted, once you scan to the bottom of the list, you forget exactly what is was you meant to say.
sod (11:52:13) :
this is false. the blind acceptance of this list demonstrates a serious lack of scepticism among those who post comments here.
Please point to the “blind acceptance of those who post here”. I don’t see it. Certainly I don’t blindly accept anything.
Dano (13:55:30) :
Is it certain that all 450 are peer-reviewed?
Do you really think ‘Commentary’ and ‘Reply’ is a peer-reviewed paper? Of course you don’t.
Journals often will not publish letters and comments unless they are peer reviewed, or pass muster in some manner. You cannot suggest that journals publish just any letter or comment, I assure you they do not. I have gotten into lengthy discussions over the substance of a technical comment to a Journal. Now what would be nice in this case is an inclusion of any following responses to these comments and letters from the original authors. But that is something that the community could provide to help improve this list.
Neven says:
“……..something better wake the American people up soon to the notion that they are unwittingly being kept hostage by a system that promotes infinite growth in a finite world. A system that wants to keep them hooked on fossil fuels and a debt-based financial system. A system that is stealing their money and killing their young men in illegitimate wars to keep those juices flowing in one direction: to the ultra-rich elite.”
As near as I can tell, this is a flat out admission that the primary purpose of AGW is to focus efforts to totally transform society. But neven can’t sell his world vision on the “merits”. Hence the need for “The Big Lie”.
Joel Shore (12:13:17) :
Juraj V. says:
Tropics trend near surface:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop.html
Tropics trend mid-troposphere:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop-m.html
Santer says, that statistically the latter curve rises two to three times as steep as the surface which is obviously BS.
No…There is a reason why noone, not even Spencer and Christy themselves, looks at T_2 for evidence of whether warming is occurring and that is because while the weighting function for T_2 is centered in the mid-stratosphere, it is contaminated by the fact that its weighting function has a significant tail into the stratosphere where there is very significant cooling predicted (due to both greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion) and observed.
I have to admit that you are right in case of the weighting problem, but it doesn’t help for the AGW theory anyway.
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/msu_amsu_channels.png The weighting functions which you mentioned are available here. According to the chart, the stratospheric cooling can influence the middle tropospheric (TMT) satellite series by 10-15% of their magnitude. Between 1979 and 1998 we have seen a warming trend of about 0.15°c/decade in the lower troposphere. In case of the tropical regions, we should see a very steep temperature increase around 200-300 hPa (9-12km), if the AGW theory is correct. The expected warming in this atmospheric layer is at least 0.4°c/decade.
According to the HadAT global atmospheric temperature series, the stratosphere have cooled by 0.3-0.4°c/ decade. The 10% of this temperature change is only 0.03-0.04°c/decade, so we could easily point out that the stratospheric “weighting tail” cannot influence the middle tropospheric values enough to offset an intense warming in the troposphere – which is caused by a “Santer-type hiding hotspot”.
The middle tropospheric warming must be more steep than the near-surface temperature increase. We can’t avoid this, if we are not going to see an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere it means that the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (which largely relies on water vapor feedback) is falsified by recent observations.
One more thing: the HadAT2 series (compiled from atmospheric soundings carried out by radiosondes) shows the very same situation, the predicted hotspot is missing.
Neven (13:29:00): You know, that is my problem with this site and also with Steve McIntyre. Never, not even once, have I seen one article criticizing arguments from the ‘contrarian’ side.
Good point. However naïve! Take a closer look and you will find many different opinions, disagreements and viewpoints here. Some criticize the AGW side, some criticise the sceptical side and some criticize both sides. What do we know for certain about the climate? The sun, the atmosphere and the oceans are dominated by turbulent and unpredictable buoyancy forces. Many of the strongest voices here have the opinion that we do not know, so we are sceptical to both sides.
“If you know, recognize that you know, If you don’t know, then realize that you don’t know: That is knowledge. True knowledge is when one knows the limitations of one’s knowledge.”
Given the amount of publicity for AGW, this site helps to balance the picture and examine the many faults of the AGW propaganda machine. But this is not the main point here; the main point is to ensure that knowledge about the climate is based on sound and honest science. Most honest engineers and scientists here are so concerned about understanding nature that they do not resort to biased opinions based on political or other “religious” reasons. We all know that true scientists criticize their own ideas all the time – that’s all we do! Stating otherwise would be extremely naïve or similar to stating that Richard Feynman’s only criticizes Cargo Cult Science and makes an error because he does not criticize those that criticize Cargo Cult Science.
The IPCC is cargo cult science in action. The IPCC form looks perfect, they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, it looks like science to journalists and is sold as such to the layman, but they’re missing something essential, because while the cash certainly is raining in, the observations continue to disagree with the models. It’s time the IPCC ended its Cargo Cult mentality!
http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/04/impish-professors-cargo-cult.html
Gene Nemetz (13:34:01) “Is it certain that all 450 are peer-reviewed?”
Peer-review cuts both ways, so I don’t think we should (exclusively) use that as a value/quality indicator (aside from in formal communications where culture/protocol might dictate practice).
I wrote:
The battle between both sides in this argument is not just about the science, it’s about the forcing a potentially damaging political solution that may be worse than the projected problem.
Neven replied:
Claiming that a political solution for AGW would be worse than AGW itself smacks of alarmism, if only for the fact that one of the side effects would be a decrease in dependency on dwindling resources. The US needs to get some of its dignity back, but it will need another Pearl Harbor – like the neocons put it poetically – to get everybody’s ass in gear.
Note my inclusion of the words may be worseand potentially. I am not being an alarmist, I’m being sensible. Look, I’m not against regulation that is simple AND effective. As a student of mass media, I recognize that the creation of the Federal Radio Commission in the 1920’s was the right action to stabilize the chaotic nature of the broadcasting industry of the time. The requirement th make catalytic converters standard on autos has done wonders. When was the last time you heard of a level 5 smog alert in LA?
This regulation is different. Unlike the catalytic converter, there is no proven technology that can be implemented to replace fossil fuel. You say wind and solar? This bill intends to double the amount of energy we get from those sources at great cost, hundreds of billions of dollars. Is the cost worth it? When you consider that right now we get only one percent of our nations energy supply comes from those sources, which would make it only two % of the energy produced. Coupled with a net jobs loss, as twice as many jobs would be lost than gained, it doesn’t sound like smart legislation. Add to that the creation of yet another derivative in the form of carbon credits. We have already suffered enough economically due to the nebulous nature of the derivative thank you very much.
My biggest problem with this legislation is the push to do it right now, as if one year of real, honest discussion on the merits of the proposals would doom us all to environmental Armageddon. Instead, the leaders of congress are bound and determined to ram this thing down our throats, regardless of the negative consequences, and lack of provable positive ones. it feels like this:
Oh No! We have a problem.
Here is a solution.
This must be passed.
There is one question missing from that dialog: “Is this solution THE RIGHT ONE?”. They want to pass the legislation with out answering that question. It’s that very same unquestioning tendencies that produce some of the unwise policies of both government and business institutions that have gotten us to the point where we are.
Hope this makes sense. I’m trying to hurry. Gotta go shopping for gathering at the Sonicfrog lillypad tonight. Friend coming over for the new Dr Who!.
Good point. However naïve! Take a closer look and you will find many different opinions, disagreements and viewpoints here. Some criticize the AGW side, some criticise the sceptical side and some criticize both sides.
When did Anthony Watts or Stephen McIntyre ever criticize the skeptical side? Is there anything Anthony won’t post as long as it is refuting conventional thought on AGW?
Neven:
“When did Anthony Watts or Stephen McIntyre ever criticize the skeptical side?”
I posted a graph from Beck, and Anthony promptly disputed it. It’s happened to others, too. That’s one of the things that makes WUWT so much superior to the realclimate echo chamber, and similar alarmist sites.
Thanks Andrew for this important work. I shall scrutinize it carefully, together with any warmist comments that might have some substance here – they occasionally have useful criticisms but today it’s mostly rants and straw ghosts so it looks like you’ve hit an AGW nerve.
Tom P, Ben Santer reputedly singlehandedly rewrote key passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, so that it no longer actually summarized the science as agreed by the real scientists – no – Santer put in the slant that things were bad and we were probably to blame. And please don’t tell me that you have evidence that Santer’s meddling is a fiction, because I almost certainly already have any info you can tell me, plus the answers. I’ve done my homework on both sides of the argument.
Lucy, I’ve read through your website a lot about a year ago and since then have been wanting to ask you this: IIRC you’re involved in the Transition Town movement, you believe in a lot of non-conventional stuff, such as Peak Oil for instance. Normally people in your ‘category’ (if you don’t mind my putting it that way, I’m more or less in the same category) embrace the idea of AGW or at least welcome it for the heavy pointer it is to the root of most global problems (mineral depletion, top soil erosion, overfishing, ocean acidification, financial bubbles and so on): the predominant economic concept of infinite growth in a finite system. How come you think AGW is a fraud and how does it fit in with the rest of your beliefs (Transition Towns is all about the double whammy of AGW and Peak Oil for instance)? I hope you understand why I see some sort of a contradiction here.
Too many of these are: (a) from Energy and Environment, a trade journal edited by a self-proclaimed “skeptic”; (b) contain no original research; (c) do not contradict the consensus position. I haven’t looked at them all but I’d be surprised after sampling a dozen or so if there’s even one article in the whole list that contradicts the consensus *and* holds up to scrutiny. I feel embarrassed for the person who compiled this list.
I count 82 articles in “Energy & Environment”, who’s editor blatantly states that it has a political bias. I wonder who the “peers” are that review the manuscripts…
Nevin,
You are lost in the fog, your philosophical position means there is no proof for you, or anyone else. Not really very useful! Read David Hume and think about where you go next. You are not the first to notice this problem
sod, I can assure you, there is nothing here that could be further from “blind acceptance” of this list of papers. I can also assure you that this is probably one of the most appropriate places on the planet to present such a list, because I can assure you that this blog, and all the people who frequent here, will analyze, scrutinize and criticize this list to its full extent, with or without YOU. This is because that IS precisely what the people here do with ANY and ALL information presented on this blog (unlike blogs like RC). I have been reading this blog (and contributing from time to time) for quite a while now, and I have found this to be THE MOST critical forums in the blogosphere. For all the issues contained within these papers, I have full confidence that they will be exposed and discussed here, for that is what we do here!
I feel embarrassed for the person who compiled this list.
Maybe the embarrassment should be felt for those who continue to push and push manmade global warming on a planet that is cooling.
a political bias
You will find ‘a political bias’ in the IPCC. And you will find ‘a political bias’ in Al Gore. He is a politician.
ginckgo (18:41:07) :
I count 82 articles in “Energy & Environment”, who’s editor blatantly states that it has a political bias.
I take it then, weather you statement about Energy & Environment is true or not, from your viewpoint peer-review can be influenced by politics. Isn’t that something AGW deniers have been telling the AGW true believers for years? Isn’t that something the true believers have been denying until the cows come home?
Thank you for finally publicly acknowledging it.
ginckgo (18:41:07) :
I count 82 articles in “Energy & Environment”….
There are better ways to spend a Sunday.
Interesting sudden swarm of alarmists on this thread.
The cause?? They see the titanium-swathed 450 documents, and of course they will try to destroy anything that contradicts their primitive understanding of science.
Saw that coming.
The amazing, yes, even baffling thing, is that they continue to swarm.
Must be something else.
But it isn’t remotely the Scientific Method….any any shape, form, or fashion.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
[REPLY – Well, whatever the cause, all points of view are welcome here (with the usual provisos, of course). ~ Evan]
Correction: But it isn’t remotely the Scientific Method….in any shape, form, or fashion.
@ Neven:
Which “dwindling” resources would that be?
– Oil? [nope]
– Natural Gas [nope]
– Coal [nope]
– Uranium [nope]
Can’t figure out just what you are talking about here Neven. I’m not aware of ANY of these resources currently in a “dwindling” state. If that were true, why would anyone worry about restricting their use if they are so limited and “dwindling”. Would not the problem simply resolve itself then?
So you are saying that sacrificing a few thousand lives justified? The end justifies the means?
Both of which are “superstitions”
You cannot be serious! You obviously have not a clue here. I was wondering to myself “who this Neven could be”. Quite telling here I think.
Just more attacks… Your arguments fail miserably when you degrade to the point of adhom attacks! I find this approach becoming so typical of the AGW alarmist position. Can’t attack the facts? Then attack the person. This is getting so very old and so very transparent!
Again, your wealth of ignorance is astounding…
Charles (and Anthony), I personally welcome leaving Neven’s message here for all to see. I believe this is quite telling and very illustrative of the problem with the entire AGW debate and a good illustration of why the AGW position is so weak. Neven demonstrates all of the typical alarmist/leftist strategies when confronted with facts they cannot dispute head on. Neven appears to be a “poster child” for all things alarmist .. IMHO
Marxism anyone?
Neven, you seem as though you would prefer a country such as Venezuela, Cuba or the former USSR perhaps.
I find it interesting that the very people that embrace this sort of ideology have absolutely no clue what life is like living under those conditions. I can present to you billions of people who do and most certainly would rather not.
Well said. That is precisely the approach of Neven. Again, as I stated before, “the means justify the ends”. While the “means” are bad enough, its the “ends” that I am worried about.
Neven’s core issue is not AGW. From best I can tell from what he has written, he has a belief that to the extent that society is organized on the basis of capitalist free market principles, significant injustice is a necssary outcome (which he wants very much to eradicate) and that capitalist free market principles result in a dynamic of unlimited growth in a limited biosphere. He therefore fears the human race will face catastrophe as our biosphere gets “used up.” AGW is just one outcome of what he believes is a badly constructed way for humankind to live.
Neven, you can tell me if I’m roughly correct in my summary.
However, history and facts do not support your Weltanschauung. I won’t argue your desire to eradicate injustice; I’m with you in that desire. I will argue your belief in its cause (or maybe even its manifestation).
To do so would by highly OT. But, one point, if I may. A greater proportion of humanity lives happier, longer, more self-actualizing lives now than in any time in history due to two things: science and “free-market” capitalism. Those who suffer horrible injustices in the modern world are people who have no access to capitalist free markets and cannot benefit from science because they are exploited by rapacious governments devoted to anything but (e.g., North Korea, Zimbabwe are examples, but there are several dozen more on my list). China is a brilliant example of a country that had a broken economic ideology, realized it, and changed its economic ideology. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now more human than they ever could have been 20-30 years ago. I know; I’ve run a business there and employed tens of thousands. I’ve spoken with them; you should hear their stories. It’s amazing and heart warming.
However, back to my point about your involvement on this website. This website is devoted to debating whether the AGW hypothesis is supported by science or not. You can argue how good a job it does. But, compared to websites devoted to arguing that AGW is a real and serious problem, this website presents far more information and is far more tolerant of opposing views than “pro-AGW sites are.
If you are going to participate, you have to believe in science — that it transcends ideology; I’m not sure you do. But, if you do believe in science, then please focus on that; argue that. Help us understand facts and arguments that we do apprehend clearly. Take the ideology elsewhere — it’s not the point here.
Invariant: “Many of the strongest voices here have the opinion that we do not know, so we are skeptical to both sides.”
When you claim that IPCC is “cargo cult science in action” you have left scepticism behind and taken a position. There’s nothing wrong with adopting a position, but it’s a contradiction to do so while also claiming impartiality.
Climate scepticism has gained a good deal of covert mileage by the use of the term “sceptic”, which implies an impartial, non-judgemental attitude: “just asking questions”. The reality is that many sceptics hold strong views that, for example, AGW is a scam, the evidence cooked, the motives of the scientists suspect.
These are not the views of the disinterested truth seeker; rather, they are evidence of a partisan approach. Scepticism subjects all views to scrutiny, including of course, the views of sceptics.
Squidly: “…I can assure you that this blog, and all the people who frequent here, will analyze, scrutinize and criticize this list to its full extent…”
Excellent sentiment. So when can we expect to see this scrutiny and analysis?
Brendan H,
You misunderstand.
Skeptics have nothing to prove. But that does not preclude disputing the disreputable methods of the AGW scam artists, who refuse to disclose their data and methodologies. Those people deserve criticism. You expect one side to totally abide by the rules, while you give a free pass to the perpetrators of the scam.
When the alarmist contingent starts operating according to the Scientific Method, by fully and completely cooperating with anyone who requests information, then you can criticize scientific skeptics. But until then, it is the duty of everyone under the Scientific Method — including the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis themselves — to try their best to falsify that hypothesis, and to fully cooperate with anyone else trying to falsify it. Those are the rules of the Scientific Method.
Instead, they run and hide behind their stonewalling. It’s clear they are running a scam, and they deserve all the criticism they are getting. Rather than engage in psychological projection, their apologists and enablers need to look in the mirror.
Finally, asking us to report on reading 400+ papers the day they are posted is slightly premature, wouldn’t you say? Amateur tactics like that fail around here.
“Excellent sentiment. So when can we expect to see this scrutiny and analysis?”
Let’s see, 450 peer-reviewed papers, let’s say a week to scrute each one, so that’s 450 weeks, considering that they’re peerreviewed it’ll probably be hard to find a flawed paper, so let’s say 225 weeks. So four and a half years, Brendan. Stick around.
Dear Neven, I think that Smokey and others have told you nicely what I think, and my text below is unlikely to be terribly new for you. But let me say a few words, anyway.
Although I understand your belief that everyone must believe in a kind of ancient or modern religion, and they only differ in “details” (because believers can’t really imagine that there can exist something else than “religion” at all), some of these detailed differences are so remarkable and qualitative in character that it is unreasonable to put the world views in the same group.
In particular, the scientific method allows us to separate wrong beliefs from possibly correct beliefs, by formulating hypotheses and by falsifying some of them by logical reasoning and by the evidence. That’s what the scientists have been doing at least for 3+ centuries, and we continue to do so. It has led to quite some progress.
Is science “just another religion”? Well, you may call it this way, but science has features that are so different that such a classification of science as another religion won’t bring you anything useful. Science dynamically adjusts its own assumptions and uses procedures that systematically bring its opinions closer to the “exact truth”.
But because science differs from religions such as yours in such remarkable ways, it inevitably uses different tools to search for the truth, too.
You asked me how many prophets have endorsed a particular paper or finding – because you seem to assume that everyone believes in a religion, and the truth in every religion is given by counting the weight of authorities. You know, my “religion” is not based on these pillars of yours. It is based on impersonal arguments, it is based on evidence and logic. You know, I don’t know the citation counts (in most cases) and I don’t care because I am not looking at the prophets, I am actually looking at the scientific arguments.
Apologies for my being open about it, but at most something like 1 person among 50,000 could be smarter than I am when it comes to science. That’s a number you can estimate by statistically evaluating various achievements of mine and other things. So it would be really silly if I were deciding about the validity of a particular paper by counting lesser minds, don’t you think? In most cases, sensible people know very well why certain insights are found inconvenient by various institutions – and their members – and this has unfortunately become the main driver deciding about the publishing and the influence in institutionalized climate science – which really means that this discipline has ceased to be a science. These days, it’s heavily corrupt.
I surely agree with the proposition that not everyone who calls himself “a skeptic” is inevitably a genuine skeptic or even that he is a fair and impartial (and skillful?) scientist, but be sure that I know myself well enough that you won’t be able to convince me that I am not one of the real ones. 😉
Cheers,
LM
[snip – Neven was wrong to start a war of words about the US Army and Iraq in this thread – comments about the papers only, the rest are going to be deleted and Neven gets a viist to the penalty box]
Very interesting. I was expecting to find this page full of comments about specific papers.
How wrong I was. It has turned out to be a page full of political rants, ad hominems, arguments for and against capitalism and free markets and much else besides.
Of course, many papers are themselves open to criticism. Nobody would suggest otherwise. But that is the way science works. Only somebody that believes that “the science is settled” should be uncomfortble with this. Now we can see that is definately not the case.
“In other words, making sure that the powers that be can keep on acting as they have done for the past 65 years, maximizing profits at the expense of the public good. We don’t want action on AGW to disturb that, now do we?”
Neven, Gacooke beat me to it but I cannot but reiterate his point that this is a clear admission that the AGW scare is simply a proxy for a political agenda. A socialist political agenda with strong totalitarian tendencies.
An interesting point made by one of the more vociferous posters, was to do with the unsustainability of infinite growth. At first the connection with AGW was lost to me, but then I figured it was part of some world view.
I believe this world view is increasingly common. According to this way of thinking, the human world is divided into two camps – good and evil. To the evil camp belong the captitalists and free marketeers, who plunder the earth of her resources at an accelerating rate. The consequence of this is all too clear: eventually everything will be consumed and gone, leaving a planet ravaged and desolate. In the good camp, are socialists and environmentalists who see the stupidity of the evil camp and are striving towards a sustainable future. The spirit of this new environmentalism is encapulated in the AGW movement, and the doctrine of AGW is substantiated in the dogma that manmade carbon dioxide causes warming.
Now, someone like Neven will not argue with the science because that is basically irrelevant to his world view. What does it matter if CO2 does not cause warming when the real problem is not the warming, but the unsustainability of infinite consumption? This is a reasonable viewpoint, but I believe it is one without merit.
Firstly, what do we mean when we say something is consumed? The minerals – metals, ores – have not been consumed in the sense that they are no longer there, but have only been transformed. None of these ore grade resources have disappeared at all, but can all be recovered by recycling – an industry which is still in its infancy, but will grow as the costs of raw resources goes up. Government intervention isn’t necessary to make this happen – it is the inevitable result of market forces.
Secondly, when we talk about consumption, we commit the error of projecting the present into the future. A hundred and twenty years ago, people may have wondered how society would be able to keep, stable and feed all the horses that would be necessary at the end of the twentieth century. Think of all that horse pollution. Transport surely had serious problems of “sustainability”. Yet, the horse as a means of transport was later made obsolete by the automobile. People in the nineteenth century had no knowledge of television, computers, radar, mobile phones, fission, fusion, air travel, satellites and much more. How could they therefore have any knowledge of what was sustainable or not a century later? Yet, this is exactly the way people are still thinking today.
Thirdly, growth does not imply that people consume more and more things. In the nineteenth century, people “consumed” buggies and tables, suites and stoves to name but a few. Does continue growth mean that people consume more and more of these things? Of course not. It means they consume things that are better and more useful. The automobil insead of the buggy, and things they never dreamt of, such as mobile phones. All these things, such as computers and machines enable society to build things more easily, and innovation enables us to build better, more useful things. So, doubling growth certainly does not mean we as individuals would consume twice as many trees, twice as man cars, twice as many meals. It will of course mean that many poor people in undeveloped countries would consume more, but that is the result of globalisation. It is not the inevitable consequence of growth itself.
Fourthly, much has been made of oil running out. This is a fair point, but it also suffers the same errors. We don’t know that oil is, in fact running out. A growing body of scientific evidence among Russian scientists, strongly suggests that oil originates from inorganic chemistry in the earth’s crust. This is the “consensus” view in Russia and has been at least proved chemically by actually producing artificial oil in the laboratory. But even if oil runs out, we cannot know what technology will be available in 2100 that would render oil obsolete anyway.
Is this list OK to reproduce on public forums? With all the necessary references and credit where it is due of course.
REPLY: absolutely. – Anthony
Neven (14:59:48),
I compiled the list to provide a reference for skeptics. As I have the time I will add more papers. I felt there was a sufficient number to post it. It is by no remote means finished.
You post a politically charged rant based on economic illiteracy and complain that the responses to this are of a political nature? Hypocrite.
Yes I am guilty of supporting personal liberty and economic freedom but not by some association with any group but rather years of economic study. I recommend,
Economics in One Lesson (PDF) (234 pgs)
[snip – lets leave the military discussion off this thread]
Your grasp of economics is very bad. Adam smith was refering to how special interests will attempt to use the government to give them an advantage in the market, this has nothing to do with a free market and no proponent of the free market supports these practices. True monopolies are only sustainable with government intervention preventing competition. Your complaints are all about government not markets.
See your economic illiteracy is common with liberal/progressive/socialists who think western economies are true capitalism or free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fools like Michael Moore think bailouts or other government intervention on the side of big business is a failure of capitalism, it is not, it is a failure of government. If you had a true well read understanding of economics you would not hold these incorrect views.
You attack WUWT because it gives a voice to those you wish people would hear from. There are many sites promoting the alarmist position, RealClimate, ClimateProgress, deSmogBlog ect… Yet I fail to see you commenting there at their lack of promoting the skeptical position? Your hypocrissy is evident.
Somehow, I am reminded of the case where Bill Gates told Steve Jobs that it did not matter how superior his system was, it was not going to be the wave of the future. No matter what data is presented, it looks to me like the IPCC and the news media are going to say that the western world responsible for dangerous encarbonization of the atmosphere. Perhaps the next big thing will be reducing human caused emissions of dihydrogen monoxide gas (H2O), a powerful greenhouse agent.
“When did Anthony Watts or Stephen McIntyre ever criticize the skeptical side? Is there anything Anthony won’t post as long as it is refuting conventional thought on AGW?”
When did Gavin Schmitt or Joe Romm ever criticize the alarmist side? Why are you not there screaming about this outrage?
Actually there are things Anthony will not post as I had to remove papers from the list before he would publish it.
Vincent (02:36:19) :
Very interesting. I was expecting to find this page full of comments about specific papers.
How wrong I was. It has turned out to be a page full of political rants, ad hominems, arguments for and against capitalism and free markets and much else besides.
Your criticism is disingenuous beyond belief, as you have shown by your own rantings and ad hominem attacks against Anthony and this blog that you have no interest whatsoever in the science. You have simply carpetbagged your way onto the AGW bandwagon, using it as a vehicle for your own political ends.
What you fail to grasp is the notion that many of us here come from the Liberal side of the political spectrum, and, at least until now, considered ourselves as, and voted as Democrats. Many of us, myself included, started off believing AGW was true, but when we started investigating the issue started to see big problems with it, particularly with the way the AGWers tried to simply shut down debate, which is your only agenda here. We see the danger of a huge lie being promulgated as Truth, even if you don’t.
“Too many of these are: (a) from Energy and Environment, a trade journal edited by a self-proclaimed “skeptic”;”
The attack on the journal Energy and Environment will persist because people think looking at Wikipedia is research, something I can further educate these people on. The fact is,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
EBSCO lists it correctly as an academic journal,
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
SCOPUS indexes the journal but incorrectly lists an interdisciplinary academic journal as a trade journal. This is illogical as E&E is not targeting any individual industry (trade) and the editors are out of universities.
What is embarrassing is people who reference wikipedia and fail to read the comments before posting erroneous replies.
poptech:
Do you bother to read the comments? I have already stated that comments and replies are not included in the paper count.
You need to go over your list then and take out the Boehmer-Christiansen in Nature and the Balling speech and the Replies.
Come now.
Read the papers on your list.
Best,
D
REPLY: Ah lectures, from climate uber-troll “Dano”, first time visit for Dano. Poptech must have really ruffled his feathers. best, A
You need to go over your list then and take out the Boehmer-Christiansen in Nature and the Balling speech and the Replies.
Why would I remove articles published in peer-reviewed journals that are not included in the paper count? There are much more than 450 listings.
Charles D Keeling and Prof Rahmstorf write “AGW”-“skeptical” papers (btw: what does this mean: skeptical paper?). Interesting.
[snip – REPLY: if you wish to make accusations such as the one snipped, feel free to do so but attach your full name to it – A]
@Anthony
you reaction tells a lot.
again, my question: please explain to me and to others: why do you list papers of Prof. Rahmstorf, Prof Schellnhuber, Charles D Keeling?
REPLY: Your unwillingness to put your name to your accusation says much about your character, coward. Put your name on it and I’ll post it, otherwise shut up.- Anthony
Why would I remove articles published in peer-reviewed journals that are not included in the paper count? There are much more than 450 listings.
I stated that your criteria are not followed in the list. That is: you stated there were no comments in there. I gave you an example.
You need to read the papers on your list. They do not back your implicit claim.
Best,
D
I am VERY appreciative of this. I was gathering my own, which was about 5% of this list.
Of course, the more work I did compiling, the more confident of my skepticism I became.
M
I am no way implying that the authors of all these papers are skeptical, only that their research supports skepticism, even when their position may be contrary.
Rahmstorf and Keeling are clearly not skeptics but their papers listed support the existence of a natural cycle to climate change.
The paper Schellnhuber co-authored clearly supports skepticism of climate models.
>”To summarize, we have presented evidence that AOGCMs fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior observed in the real temperature records.”
“I stated that your criteria are not followed in the list. That is: you stated there were no comments in there. I gave you an example.
You need to read the papers on your list. They do not back your implicit claim.”
I never stated there were not comments listed, I stated that comments were not included in the paper count. Again there are a lot more listings then the 450 papers, such as replies and comments in defense of the papers. These are important inclusions because alarmists intentionally never include these when “disputing” a paper.
All the papers support skepticism.
It’s too bad my comments weren’t allowed to pass, as it took me quite a while to write them. Not so very different from RealClimate after all, eh? Don’t disturb Anthony when he is enjoying the singing of his choir.
REPLY: Comments that have personal attacks in them generally get deleted. You are welcome to resubmit your comments, sans personal attacks, sticking to the topic being discussed and I’ll personally approve them. – Anthony
Bruce Cobb (04:40:06) wrote :
“Vincent (02:36:19 wrote) :
Very interesting. I was expecting to find this page full of comments about specific papers.
How wrong I was. It has turned out to be a page full of political rants, ad hominems, arguments for and against capitalism and free markets and much else besides.
Your criticism is disingenuous beyond belief, as you have shown by your own rantings and ad hominem attacks against Anthony and this blog that you have no interest whatsoever in the science. You have simply carpetbagged your way onto the AGW bandwagon, using it as a vehicle for your own political ends”
What on earth are you talking about? What rant did I make against Anthony, or against his blog? My point was precisely the opposite of the one which you allege I have made. Namely, hardly anyone has talked about the science at all. Do I need to spell it out for you? I was complaining that the thread has become highjacked by warmists ranting about everything under the sun.
Joel Shore (12:00:39) :
Smokey: Of course, Neven is absolutely 100% correct. Calling yourself a “skeptic” does not make you a “skeptic”. Usually, skeptics are defined by demanding evidence for arguments in both directions.”
I’m disappointed to see you standing so steadfastly by Neven. “absolutely 100%” isn’t just tautological, it’s extravagant and wrong. Your elaboration of the point, beginning with the adverb “usually”, does much to refute your claim.
As is often the case with English nouns and adjectives, the connotation of “sceptical” is not the same as that of “sceptic”, and there’s a variety of possible definitions. My own disinclination to embrace the AGW hypothesis as fact makes me sceptical of AGW, or, perhaps, an AGW sceptic. If that appellation is unpalatable, I could offer “AGW non-believer” as a reasonable synonym. AGW-infidel would be tidier, but, just as CO2 became carbon, I could just be an “infidel”.
Brendan H (00:38:52): Invariant: “Many of the strongest voices here have the opinion that we do not know, so we are sceptical to both sides.” When you claim that IPCC is “cargo cult science in action” you have left scepticism behind and taken a position.
Dear Brendan,
Please read this link two times – slowly:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
“If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.”
I cannot see that IPCC have published both kinds of results, in particular if some of the viewpoints in this Finnish documentary are not erroneous:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
Yes, I am sceptical to the viewpoints in this documentary too, so if you can help me to find the weak points of Dr. Lindzen and Dr. McIntyre I would be most happy (well I would be sceptical to your arguments as well though…).
Sure, not only IPCC is “cargo cult science in action”, and I think there is much “cargo cult science in action” on the sceptical side as well, in particular from people that have no solid understanding of physics and thermodynamics. Our climate is extremely complex, so arm-chair reasoning from people without first hand experience, with either experimental climate science, or knowledge of advanced computer simulation of highly nonlinear buoyancy forces that dominates or climate – is clearly nonsense.
Still, you can obviously argue the statement “IPCC is cargo cult science in action” excludes me from being a sceptic. However, I would argue that another quality is more important than being sceptical, and that is being honest. Honest scientists are what we need in the first place, and I think that the above Finnish documentary illustrates clearly that there is something fishy going on in the IPCC that makes honest people very suspicious and sceptical.
Unless you manage to convince me that the viewpoints of Dr. Lindzen and Dr. McIntyre in the Finnish documentary are not entirely true!
Poptech:
Although later papers by some of the same authors and others are not. Basically, the discrepancy between the scaling of the models and the observations goes away once you include the effects of big volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo. See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401143
Just a personal view, however I don’t regard publication in E&E as any kind of a mark of quality in a climate science paper, in fact it is frequently where a paper ends up having been rejected by a mainstream climate publication, or where the authors take the decision to go straight to DVD, as it were.
Here are my reasons:
– E&E is described as ‘interdisciplinary’, however it is focussed on the social sciences. The Editor, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, is a Reader in Geography at the University of Hull and does not hold even an undergarduate degree in the physical sciences. The co-Editor, Dr Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist. Strange choice for a paper on the connection between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate change, for example.
– As noted above, Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is pursuing her own political agenda, the actual quote is ‘I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?’. Hmmmmmm.
– In correspondence with Prof. Michael Mann, Dr Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged the lack of competence of herself and her reviewers in climate science…
I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the ‘scientific’ truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant[…] ENERGY&ENVIRONMENT has paid attention to the ‘science’ and ‘social science’ controversies associated with the IPCC for over a decade and has done so not in order to advance (natural) scientific understanding, but with reference to the profound policy relevance of this understanding …
– Roger Pielke is not a fan: ..had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited
About 1 in 6 of the 450 were published in this journal.
…or knowledge of advanced computer simulation of highly nonlinear buoyancy forces…
I have to disagree, anyone with a degree in computer science can understand the limitations of the models, you don’t even need to understand the science (though it helps). The arguments against the models are from a purely computer science based perspective. Computer code is computer code no matter how “complex” or “advanced” people pretend it is. This line of argument is used to attempt to keep the people who should be analyizing these models (computer scientists) from even thinking about being able to understand them, which is ridiculous. It is actually the natural scientists programming these models who don’t understand the limitations of computer systems. You just need to know the language the code was written in. The rest is just mathametical calculations.
I have been a peer reviewer for several astronomy journals, and I can tell you that about 95% of the time, it’s just one peer doing the reviewing. If the paper gets turned down, the author can request a different reviewer, but after two, that’s it. I assume it works similarly for other journals, but the staff hand-picks the reviewers. Thus, if the journal staff has a AGW view, they only appoint AGW view reviewers…simple as that. It’s quite naive to think that the “peer review” process is truly fair because they review panels are hand-picked. So not finding these viewpoints in the “respectable” journals is not surprising.
Vincent: Sorry about that – I not only misunderstood what you said, but mis-attributed it, confusing you with the now-infamous “neven”. You were a victim of friendly fire.
Phil Clarke (11:58:57),
If we were to remove the ad hominem comments from your post, we would be left with: “… …”.
Neven (13:29:00) :
“This ‘Pearl Harbor’ could be AGW, it could be Peak Oil, but whatever it is, something better wake the American people up soon to the notion that they are unwittingly being kept hostage by a system that promotes infinite growth in a finite world. A system that wants to keep them hooked on fossil fuels and a debt-based financial system. A system that is stealing their money and killing their young men in illegitimate wars to keep those juices flowing in one direction: to the ultra-rich elite.”
This is the biggest problem I have with the alarmists. I haven’t heard a single one of them saying that it would be better to return manufacturing to the United States. Closer to market, less fuel needed for transportation. Stricter pollution laws here versus China. Make things here, put Americans to work. Products would be more expensive due to the wages paid the American worker but that could be a plus . Less money to buy cheap junk. People would watch their money and buy quality products that last longer. Slow down mass consumerism. All of this fits into your comment of needing to stop the system of infinite growth.
But all we hear is how a global economy is a good thing. How we are supposed to give even more of our money (involuntarily this time) to other countries. So that those developing countries can pollute more than they already do until they catch up. That’s bass-ackwards. Which side is really trying to be green?
All the papers support skepticism.
Ah.
Yes, we have seen how the ~12% of the population grasps on to anything to support their ideology.
Much clearer now and I see what your little list does. The intent is much more vague than some of the other similar lists/petitions than in the past, and apologies for presuming that the list did anything concrete.
Now if we can get you to acknowledge the importance of ISI and impact factor (Matt Kahn just sniffed at a recent testimony by someone when he looked at his pubs and the impact factor of the journals – that’s the world and reality), we’d be getting somewhere.
Best,
D
Smokey – Wiki defines ad hominem argument…
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a irrelevent characteristic or belief of a and person advocating the premise
in assessing the authority and impartiality of a journal in a particular field, the qualifications of the Editor and Co-Editor, the admission of the Editor to being driven by a political agenda, the Editor’s statement of a lack of competence in the field and the critical opinion of a qualified practictioner are all undeniably to the point.
Phil,
You are just regurgitating the smears from the locked wikipedia page.
E&E publishes both natural and social sciences, the qualifications of the editors is irrelevant as they would only be assigning reviewers.
Her “agenda” is allowing papers to be submitted for review in her journal that may be considered skeptical, this does not mean everything submitted is accepted for submission or published without review.
Yes the purpose of the journal is clearly defined:
“A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organisations in the debate. Particular attention is given to ways of resolving conflict in the energy and environment field.”
This does not mean the papers have no scientific relevance only that they were selected to further this debate.
“Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus
Phil Clarke,
Science is not dependent on the means of communicating its veracity.
If and when you falsify all the papers listed, you win. Because as Einstein famously commented to 100 writers who’d said his theory of relativity was false: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
So long as one fact falsifies the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, the hypothesis is in error. Good luck with your reading. Report back in a few months when you’ve finished.
Bruce Cobb (12:04:54) :
“Vincent: Sorry about that – I not only misunderstood what you said, but mis-attributed it, confusing you with the now-infamous “neven”. You were a victim of friendly fire”
No worries. I guess I was a bit over sensitive.
Now if we can get you to acknowledge the importance of ISI and impact factor
Dano, you will have to try harder then repeating wiki smears…
“Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.
“Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
Poptech (12:59:13) :
Ah. I see.
The rest of the world sees too, and they don’t see E&E because it is not a real journal.
Why is it not a real journal?
It is not a real journal because it is not on ISI nor does it have an impact factor (you have zero evidence it is subjective, despite your erroneous assertion above). So it has zero influence on science or policy.
IOW: Google doesn’t have a ‘wisdom’ button.
Sorry to break it to you. Surely it is tough to find out such things. If you want E&E to be a real journal, join the board and insist it publishes decent papers and eschews 9/10 of the stuff on your list from that journal (that 9/10 won’t get published anywhere else, which is inconvenient for a small minority of the population, but still if you want it that is what you must do).
HTH.
Best,
D
The problem for me is that there are so many downright awful papers on that list. Papers which even I, a non-expert on climate, can see holes in. It only reinforces my opinion that skeptics are not serious but are just trying to find any old noisy non-arguments to stand upon. Anything else I would expect that list to have been trimmed of junk.
The thing is, market forces comprise a stable, negative feedback mechanism. As important, it is co-located feedback, which is necessary for robust control of a distributed system. This is why command economies fail – they concentrate control in a remote center, where the only observations and actuation are through blunt and often corrupted aggregate variables and drivers.
True AGW believers do not understand climate feedbacks either. The other AGW believers, as noted by others, often have a different agenda altogether.
socold (13:23:24) :
” The problem for me is that there are so many downright awful papers on that list.”
It only takes one good one.
Dano, if the rest of the world “sees” this there would be no concern on your part to be here to make sure to smear it. The fact is you don’t want anyone reading these papers so you are desperately trying to do whatever you can to smear them.
Again, “Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.
Whether the Thompson Reuters corporation subjectively decides to index a certain journal or not in their commercial database has no bearing on anything. This may have mattered before prominent competitors such as EBSCIO, Scopus and Google Scholar existed but not in the 21st century.
“Impact Factor” is the Thompson Reuter corporation’s subjective determination of popularity which has no bearing on scientific validity.
Poptech (12:01:41) : “Computer code is computer code no matter how “complex” or “advanced” people pretend it is.”
A computer model is topologically equivalent to a pen and the back of an envelope.
The problem for me is that there are so many downright awful papers on that list.
You wish there were which is why you have failed to produce published criticism of any of them and have instead resorted to typical propaganda tactics.
The fact is you don’t want anyone reading these papers so you are desperately trying to do whatever you can to smear them.
No.
This is not a fact. We don’t get our own facts.
Actually, the fact is that for the non-E&E papers, I’d like for more people here to read them.
Why is it a fact that I would I like for more people to read them?
I would like for more people to read them because most of the non-E&E papers disagree with the implication of such lists as yours (yours is not the first [lather, rinse, repeat]).
That is: the implicit assertion of such compilations is that there are many papers that don’t agree with AGW. This is, of course, false and it would behoove everyone to see how thin is the reed that some must grasp.
Most of these papers (not comments, not replies, not speeches (Balling’s (3rd on list) is a speech)) do not support what you vaguely imply they support. I encourage everyone to read a few on the list and see for themselves that they do not support such implicit claims. Please. Everyone read some. Read many. Compare their findings with PopTech’s implicit claim. Read some. Choose a few. Read.
As for the E&E papers, their weaknesses and flaws need no trumpeting from me. And they’ll get no trumpeting because they don’t show up on most library searches [ask some of your student readers to see if their library carries this journal. Go ahead. Ask them. ].
The Google does not have a ‘wisdom’ button.
Best,
D
Smokey,
Exactly which of the papers contains the ‘one fact’ that falsifies the hypothesis that recent warming has a large anthropogenic component? Here’s the hypothesis in highly condensed form…
Basic carbon accounting and isotopic analysis of the CO2 show that the 35% increase in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times is is due to human activities. Not that there are no other forcings, nor that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, CO2 has prominence because of its longevity: of a given pulse of CO2 emitted now, about a fifth will still be affecting the climate about 1,000 years hence.
We have good estimates of the amount by which the additional greenhouse gases are creating an energy imbalance, for example Myhre et al.. Indeed the fact and amount of this imbalance is not disputed even by sceptics such as Spencer and Lindzen.
An object with an imbalance in its net radiative budget will increase in temperature, all other things being equal. To argue otherwise is like switching on a kettle and expecting it not to heat up. The interesting questions are, by how much and how quickly will this forcing increase the planetary temperature. There are many studies on this number, usually expressed as the temperature increase at equilibrium after a doubling of CO2 concentrations some based on observations, some on models. The raw increase, absent feedbacks, has been computed at about 1.1C, however it is implausible that the increase will not cause some feedback effects – both positive and negative. Studies of the with-feedbacks case vary in result, but cluster around the 3C mark.
A key projected feedback is the increase in water vapour held in the atmosphere as the atmospheric temperature increases. This effect has already been observed by Andrew Dessler et al
The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of lq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. and from the conclusion The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed teed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.
So which paper listed above contains the killer evidence that Myhre, Annan, Dessler (and 98% of the climate science discipline) have drawn the wrong conclusions?
Something about Dano’s post reminds me of lifting a rock and watching all the sqirmies run for cover.
Having just typed out a whole firstrate paper by Jaworowski et al (a great way to steep myself in the science), I searched for it here and couldn’t see it. Andrew CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A CONTENTS LIST?
Here comes the good part. Serendipity throws gifts. Googling for it, I found this Google group post
I see no 450 paper, I see a lot of E&E… not a scientific journal. Let’s just take another [example]…
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?… Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono ...
[This is] an elsevier journal, but it is 16 years old… [the poster looks up] Jaworowski on Wikipedia: …Jaworowski’s views are rejected by the scientific community… Hans Oeschger states that “…Some of (Jaworowski’s) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view”… [This is] sufficient evidence that … Jaworowski is a crack-pot, Hans Oeschger declared the man scientifically seen dead already a long time ago. Now, I could dig a little bit deeper in this famous list of 450 papers, but one rotten apple in the basket probably means that there are more. An AGW denier was kicked in the nuts, how painful.
Three conclusions. (1) Andrew, thanks, so you did include it (2) warmist shows the profundity of his research (3) and it’s the kind of OTT dismissal that alerts me to explore the opposite conclusion
I’d like for more people here to read them
Excellent! So this means you have no further use here but to promote the list around the Internet to encourage them to be read.
Thanks to the Internet and the list there is no need to go to the library to read them anymore, you can do this at home! Dano, you should know about the Internet by now.
Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.
Hans Oeschger, Ph. D. Professor of Physics
Physical Institute
University of Bern
Chl-3012 Bern, Switzerland
Source
Here is another paper that illustrates JAWOROWSKI’s visionary genius: “Mikhail Budyko, the leading Russian climatologist (now deceased), predicted in 1982 a future drastic CO2 deficit in the atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire surface of the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said, would survive on the active volcano edges. […] let’s assume that Budyko has been right and that everything, to the very ocean bottom, will be frozen. Will mankind survive this? I think yes, it would. The present technology of nuclear power, based on the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, would secure heat and electricity supplies for 5 billion people for about 10,000 years. At the same time, the stock of hydrogen in the ocean for future fusion-based reactors would suffice for 6 billion years. Our cities, industrial , food-producing greenhouses, our livestock, and also zoos and botanical gardens turned into greenhouses, could be heated virtually forever, and we could survive, together with many other organisms, on a planet that had turned into a gigantic glacier.
Hooray!
Dano
I read a random ten papers. They were variable in quaity but all appeared to support the basic premise behind the list.
Could you specifically name another ten of your own selection so I can see for myself the flaws you say are there? Best to actually link to them if you would so I don’t have to trawl back through the list-its very long
Thanks
tonyb
Gene Nemetz (19:44:39)
It’s largely because of the insistence by the scientific community that publication of scientific findings requires passing peer-review to be accepted, now we are seeing various fringe groups co-opting this methodology to appear credible. The creationists are doing it, E&E has done it.
That the editor herself has said her acceptance of articles is politically biased is atrocious. The fact that this nominally peer-reviewed journal is corrupt does not make the whole peer-review process corrupt.
The amount of confirmation bias on this site is just amazing.
Phil Clarke,
Your IPCC number of 3°C resulting from doubling of CO2 is being falsified by the planet itself. I understand that you are arguing in a roundabout way for some mysterious, hidden “heat in the pipeline” to be identified as the alarmists’ Deus ex machina come to rescue the increasingly weak CO2=CAGW hypothesis. But since no heat sufficient to warm the planet by nearly that amount has been located, I prefer to accept the expert analysis of Prof Richard Lindzen, who gives but a small fraction of that number, on the order of 0.5°C. That would make a doubling of CO2 uneventful, and in fact, beneficial.
My post @12:44:29 preempted your argument. The alarming AGW hypothesis claims that an increase in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Your main argument is that ‘an object with an imbalance in its net radiative budget will increase in temperature, all other things being equal.’ But since the planet has been cooling for most of the past decade, and since the global temperature is not appreciably different than it was thirty years ago, it is clear that there is no net radiative imbalance acting to cause global warming.
I prefer to accept planet Earth’s verdict, rather than the repeatedly failed predictions of the alarmist crowd. I suppose you could claim, without any empirical evidence, that mysterious forces are counteracting Earth’s natural cooling cycle. But if you do so, you must specifically identify and quantify any supposed forcings. Otherwise it’s simply a baseless “But what if…” argument.
Finally, I have not read the four hundred+ papers cited. Some may make a stronger case than others. But as St Albert said, all it takes is one fact to destroy a hypothesis. So you need to specifically refute them, one by one. Otherwise, all you’re saying is, “Trust me, CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.”
I would love to trust you. But I am a scientific skeptic, and skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the defenders of the alarming AGW hypothesis who must defend it from all attacks, or forfeit credibility.
So, on with your reading. Report back when you’ve finished. By that time there will be a new list to tackle.
ginckgo (15:11:01) :
“The fact that this nominally peer-reviewed journal is corrupt does not make the whole peer-review process corrupt.”
You have not shown it to be corrupt. Verifiable facts, please. Insinuations based on agenda don’t pass muster here.
But the climate peer review process is corrupt: click
When you’re done with that, read the Wegman Report to Congress, by an internationally esteemed statistician, which shows that a small clique has commandeered the climate peer review system for its own benefit. When you’re done with those, I have others.
Based on my experience during decades of involvement in this field, I consider the chances as very small that the major findings from greenhouse gas studies on ice cores are fundamentally wrong; and I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.
Yet he provides no evidence to support any of his claims he just makes declarations and offers appeals to authority, urging “The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change” in…
1995 …14 years later and the planet survives!
Phil then links to a non peer-reviewed paper, interesting.
Let’s call ourselves “climate change critics,” not “skeptics,” which implies a more even-handed approach than we take.
“…now we are seeing various fringe groups co-opting this methodology to appear credible. The creationists are doing it, E&E has done it.”
Now we are seeing alarmists post to WUWT in record numbers attempting to inject as many lies and smears as possible. Creationism? Really? I am a firm believer in evolution theory.
“That the editor herself has said her acceptance of articles is politically biased is atrocious. The fact that this nominally peer-reviewed journal is corrupt does not make the whole peer-review process corrupt.”
There is nothing corrupt about the journal.
Excellent! So this means you have no further use here but to promote the list around the Internet to encourage them to be read.
Your conclusion does not follow from the preceding. Unless you mean to imply that the list does not support your implicit claim that hunnnndreds of papers disagree with the findings of AGW.
———————
I read a random ten papers. They were variable in quaity but all appeared to support the basic premise behind the list.
Could you specifically name another ten of your own selection
Sure. What were your ten before we begin?
Best,
D
Unless you mean to imply that the list does not support your implicit claim that hunnnndreds of papers disagree with the findings of AGW.
Actually what I claimed was,
They support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
Yes, Hundreds.
What’s the big deal about being skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
You could add every paper by Schmidt, Hansen, and Mann to that list.
Smokey (15:27:07) : That is the elephant in the room. The climate is not cooperating with the preordained conclusion.
Phil Clarke (14:20:34) :
“Basic carbon accounting and isotopic analysis of the CO2 show that the 35% increase in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times is is due to human activities.”
Basic accounting is not up to this task. It is a dynamic system, with multiple feedbacks and drivers. The overhyped 13C/12C ratio is not conclusive evidence that the overall rise in CO2 is anthropogenic.
My Top Ten …..
1. Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response – Archibald E&E
Additionally, Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA! The possibility of these stations being representative of anything other than the small local region they covered is non-existent.
The Worst Climate Paper of All Time, Ever.
2. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature – McLean et al
Subject to the fastest debunking in academia, first by blog, then by comment
3. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Robinson, Soon, Baliunas
Torn to shreds here
4. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics
Rebuttal here co-authored by one Joel Shore.
5. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Chiligar et al.
Rebuttal here
6. On the credibility of climate predictions
The methodology we employed in this study is very simple. We decided to use eight stations (this number was dictated by time and resource limitations—the research is not funded).
That’s right folks, they discredited the reliability of GCMs using 8 (out of c4,000) weather stations. And we all know how reliable [small numbers of] weather stations are, right ;=)?
7. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years – Soon and Baliunas.
So poor, half the journal’s board resigned …Hans von Storch: “After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed;”
8 Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
9 Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage
10 Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate
Three for the price of one … Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data
However,close analysis of the central graphs in all of these articles reveals questionable handling of the underlying physical data. In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures during the global warming of the recent decennia had been a major factor in the article’s strong impact. But this agreement was actually an artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding to a heavily smoothed (“filtered”) curve, four additional points covering the period of global warming,which were only partially filtered or not filtered at all. […] An update with the correct data shows that the development of total global cloud cover since 1992 has been in clear contradiction to the hypothesis proposed by the authors; that is, it is quite different from the development of the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation [Laut, 2003].
For any more, I would require danger money ….
They support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
No they “don’t”.
Now that “you” are finally “more” specific, “you” are incorrect.
The papers in legitimate journals, I’d guess, need to be pared by about 80%, not counting the ones from “Shaviv” and “Svensmark”, of whom I think zero have withstood peer review; meaning: if “you” want a real list, “you’ll” want the ones that have withstood peer review, not ones that just made it to print.
Surely no one takes Lindzen’s ‘Iris’ seriously so that doesn’t really count, unless all “you” want to “do” is just post big numbers. Then by all means, continue as “is”.
Best,
D
Finally, I have not read the four hundred+ papers cited. Some may make a stronger case than others. But as St Albert said, all it takes is one fact to destroy a hypothesis. So you need to specifically refute them, one by one. Otherwise, all you’re saying is, “Trust me, CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.”
Way to go Mr S! In a single para, you concede you cannot locate the promised falisfication, attempt to frame the argument, and put words in my mouth.
Any chance you can actually provide evidence for this ‘falsification’? Is it the planet has been cooling for most of the past decade? Is that it?
Adam Soereg says:
I think your estimate of the effect of the stratospheric cooling influence on T2 may be a little low. However, even if not, the T2 measurement not only includes the stratosphere but also averages over a broad layer of the troposphere so that the amplification over this broad band (or over the broad band of T2LT) is not expected to be nearly as large as it is in the 200-300 mB level.
Both the satellite records and the radiosonde data have severe data artifacts affecting the long-term trends in the tropical troposphere, making it very difficult to reach any conclusions. However, what can be looked at reliably is the amplification of the shorter term fluctuations (due to ENSO, for example) and these do show the expected amplification as you go up in the tropical troposphere. It is difficult to imagine how the convective effects on the timescales of days that lead to this amplification are operating so that the amplification occurs on timescales or months to a few years but fails on the timescales of the multidecadal trends.
Except that we have independent observational data telling us that the water vapor feedback is working as expected, both for the fluctuations on the timescale of months to a few years (where the data is reliable) and for the longer term trends (where there is admittedly more uncertainty due to the issues in removing artifacts from the trends). See, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5749/841 and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5917/1020
It is still a little bit of a puzzle what is going on with the amplification of the multidecadal trends in the tropical troposphere, but given the problems with the data, there is no real ability to conclude that there is any real discrepancy with the models.
Smokey:
I think I have never met anyone with a lower sense of personal responsibility than you show with these statements. Basically, you are saying, “We can just throw as much mud and garbage at you as we want…and no matter how much is demonstrated to be mud and garbage, it is your job to disprove it all. And, it is not our job to exercise any quality control.” [It is actually worse than this, since even once I patiently explain to you what is wrong with a piece of “evidence”, you continue to use it anyway.
You really ought to be honest and say, “My political views will never allow me to accept the fact that AGW is correct, no matter how much evidence is provided. I will continue to find the most ridiculous garbage to cling to in order to support my position.” You’re not really fooling anyone with your faux-openmindness, except perhaps yourself and perhaps some of the other most extreme party-liners here.
Reply: I need to get both of you to back it down. And yes that means you too Smokey. ~ charles the moderator
Now ask Joel Shore if there is evidence indicating surface station thermometers are reliable measurements 🙂
See Joel, it works both ways. Let it all hang out. Cite the evidence the near surface temperatures are warm biased. Can you muster up the strength?
Anthony Watts promised to do a reconstruction from GHCN 1 & 2 stations to compare to the formal time series when 75% of weather stations had been reported. That time passed months ago. An update is way overdue.
Posting the time-series of the current number of good stations (or the first 75%, as promised) will not interfere with the later publishing of the formal study. Why have we not seen this update, when it would take a matter of hours to crunch the numbers?
There are siting and other problems with surface station data, obviously. The important thing to know is to what degree of accuracy they have been corrected – whether the formal records (NCDC/NASA) are sound.
Joel Shore (17:30:56)
“Basically, you are saying, “We can just throw as much mud and garbage at you as we want…and no matter how much is demonstrated to be mud and garbage, it is your job to disprove it all.”
And, you guys basically are saying, “We can cherry pick the least reliable of your studies and, by refuting them, discredit the entire list.”
In the ‘laws of bad science’ we can see the basis of the CO2=CAGW claim, and where it’s headed:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent [human produced CO2] of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. [Global temps declining as CO2 rises.]
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability [Temps are within 0.2° of those 30 years ago.], or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy. [IPCC’s predictions taken to 3 decimal places.}
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. [Ice free Arctic within 4 years; 20 meter rise in sea level, etc.]
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. [Constantly moving the goal posts; AGW accounts for every weather event, for two-headed frogs, etc.]
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero. [CAGW has crested the hill and is now gaining downward momentum.]
[Source: Langmuir’s Laws of Bad Science.]
Over 80 items on this list are from Environment & Energy I’m sorry but that is not a peer reviewed journal. Then this picked at random from the list
A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Again Sorry but a commentary is not a peer reviewed paper.
Smokey: “Skeptics have nothing to prove. But that does not preclude disputing the disreputable methods of the AGW scam artists…”
When you make claims about “AGW scam artists”, you do indeed bear the burden of proof. And I will treat such claims with the requisite degree of scepticism. I know you would expect no less.
Ambro: “Let’s see, 450 peer-reviewed papers, let’s say a week to scrute each one…”
Several posters have already critiqued some papers. But, sure, I’ll stick around to view the scrutiny and analysis that is sure to come.
Invariant: “…I think that the above Finnish documentary illustrates clearly that there is something fishy going on in the IPCC that makes honest people very suspicious and sceptical.”
By all means take that viewpoint. But scepticism would take a provisional view of such a programme: that certain claims have been made, but that the “other side” of the story has yet to be heard.
Scepticism is usually regarded as something like habitual doubt, whether general or particular. The initial response to the list posted at the head of this thread was acclamation, which turned to defensiveness when the list was challenged by warmers. Neither acclamation nor defensiveness is characteristic of scepticism.
Then there is the small matter of internal consistency. For example some of these papers argue that the proxy record is unreliable; others rely on the proxy record to demonstrate a historical sun-climate connection.
This is like me saying I have 25 papers that show the fossil record is unreliable, and another 25 that show the fossil record shows gaps in species’ evolutionary history. Therefore I have 50 papers supporting scepticism of evolution…
[At which point the resident evolution sceptic would pop up and argue that until all 50 were refuted, evolution was disproven …. :-)]
“1. Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response – Archibald E&E
The Worst Climate Paper of All Time, Ever.”
A blog post not a published response.
“2. Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature – McLean et al
Subject to the fastest debunking in academia, first by blog, then by comment”
A blog post not a published response, defended by comment,
Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
– David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox
“3. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Robinson, Soon, Baliunas
Torn to shreds here”
No a published response.
“4. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics
Rebuttal here co-authored by one Joel Shore.”
Not a published response.
“5. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Chiligar et al.
Rebuttal here”
Defended here,
Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. ChilingarM
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar
“6. On the credibility of climate predictions”
Not a published response.
“7. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years – Soon and Baliunas.
So poor, ”
So bad that no one bothered to publish a single response?
“8 Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
9 Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage
10 Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate
Three for the price of one …”
Yet not a single published response?
“For any more, I would require danger money …”
You have to do better than that as you only managed to find two published responses, both of which were refuted. Isn’t it the alarmists who say everything has to be published in the peer-review literature or are we now accepting rebuttals from blogs? If so you just accepted everything on ClimateAudit.
“No they “don’t”. ”
Yes they all support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
“The papers in legitimate journals,”
Please define the scientific procedure on how this is determined and who determines this.
“of whom I think zero have withstood peer review; meaning: if “you” want a real list, “you’ll” want the ones that have withstood peer review, not ones that just made it to print.”
This is a lie as all the papers withstood peer-review.
“Surely no one takes Lindzen’s ‘Iris’ seriously”
Yes of course the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is one of your non-legitimate journals.
Dano, you are getting desperate.
“Over 80 items on this list are from Environment & Energy I’m sorry but that is not a peer reviewed journal. ”
Wrong again (please read the comments before posting), Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and Scopus
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
“Again Sorry but a commentary is not a peer reviewed paper.”
Sometimes commentaries are peer-reviewed but in this case it is not included in the paper count regardless.
And then there’s Yamal. And Tiljander. And the Piltdown Mann’s split-bark bristlecone pine temperature series. And the failure of temperature to rise while CO2 goes up and up and up.
=====================================
Dano
I am perfectly happy to re read something twice if it so happens you post papers I have already looked at.
Why not give me 10 references then that should ensure I defintely end up with 10 I haven’t seen. Or are you saying ALL of them are unreliable?
Thanks
Tonyb
“Or are you saying ALL of them are unreliable?”
They are saying any paper that they can find a blog post against is “unreliable”. If they had a case they would write a comment on the paper for publication but they are well aware this would allow a comment by the authors in defense of the papers.
PopTech [snark snipped]
WE know Poptech hasn’t a clue when we see things like this:
Yes they all support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
Stating something doesn’t make it true.
It took little time at all to find this reply (lovingly catalogued at Heartland) that has nothing to do with being skeptical of AGW [didn’t read it, did you. If so, you are [snip]). This paper does not reject. Nor this reply ([snip]). Nor this paper. Nor this one.
No need to go on here.
This is a lie as all the papers withstood peer-review.
Getting published is not completing peer-review. The publishing part allows…peers to…um…review it.
Come now. A speech published in a journal is not peer review (a speech as evidence?). You really don’t know what the process is at all, do you? [snip]
For example, poor Shaviv’s 2003 CRF paper (lovingly included on the list was eviscerated after publication – meaning, it has not withstood peer review. And Lindzen’s IR Iris was published, yet has not withstood peer review – no one uses it in their modeling, as a reference any more to support their hypothesis, as a poster at a conference…meaning: the review of peers concludes it is not a robust paper.
“Surely no one takes Lindzen’s ‘Iris’ seriously”
Yes of course the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is one of your non-legitimate journals.
This is what PopTech is hanging his hat on, apparently: a paper getting published is valid. This is not how the world works.
I hope this helps everyone. It is very clear Poptech doesn’t know what his list contains wrt folks out here in reality.
Poptech, if I may, you may want to turn over the…auditing…of your list to someone competent, for some serious paring down. The list does not support your (or the small minority’s) wish.
Best,
D
P.S. I’d like to thank the site owners and staff for allowing my comments to stand thus far.
Brendan H (22:49:58):
“When you make claims about ‘AGW scam artists’, you do indeed bear the burden of proof.”
OK: In addition to the Yamal and Tiljander series that Kim references above [and whose deconstruction can be found on ClimateAudit], there is this and this.
It now turns out that Keith Briffa used one [1] tree to create yet another bogus hockey stick chart. If that single tree [YAD061] is replaced at random from the much larger Schweingruber study, the resulting graph loses its alarming hockey stick shape altogether: click
Keith Briffa is well educated. He is not stupid, and he knew exactly what he was doing. So he certainly makes it appear that he is attempting to play alarmist games with his Yamal series, in which he carefully selected a handful of tree rings, from an area with literally millions of available trees, to generate his hockey stick graph.
Brendan says that “Scepticism is usually regarded as something like habitual doubt, whether general or particular.” That’s not quite right.
Skepticism is a function of the Scientific Method, in which every attempt must be made to tear down a hypothesis — even by those proposing it. What’s left standing is as close to scientific truth as we can get.
Skepticism requires full transparency and cooperation. But skepticism is what is missing from the climate alarmists, who routinely stonewall requests for their data and methodologies. They are uncooperative when asked to provide information. Why? Because they know that by providing full and complete access to the raw data and methods they used to arrive at their scary conclusions, their resulting hockey stick charts would be falsified, like Briffa’s was.
Every honest scientist is a skeptic. Why don’t these purveyors of climate alarmism make their data and methods transparent and available? Why do they stonewall requests for cooperation from other scientists? Could it be that falsification of their AGW hypothesis would upset their gravy train? Or is there another reason that they reject the Scientific Method?
Tony,
Snork.
I mean, um, come now. I’d want your list so I don’t duplicate your efforts. Bust out that list, man.
——————
I have a reply to PopTech in the spam queue, likely due to too many hyperlinks. I’ll try to get it out. Fortunately I cut-pasted the text so I can post elsewhere if needed.
Best,
D
Dano (05:08:07) : said
“Tony,
Snork.
I mean, um, come now. I’d want your list so I don’t duplicate your efforts. Bust out that list, man.”
Snork? Please re read what I said;
“I read a random ten papers. They were variable in quality but all appeared to support the basic premise behind the list. Could you specifically name another ten of your own selection so I can see for myself the flaws you say are there? Best to actually link to them if you would so I don’t have to trawl back through the list-its very long.”
By random I mean er…random. If I was going to carry out thorough analysis I would read, annotate, research, and record comments against each paper wouldnt I? You don’t do that level for ‘random.’
Tell you what, my random examination came from the first 50 papers, therefore there is no chance of duplication if you trawl through the last 400 in order to do your selection of 10. May the snork be with you Dano.
Best regards
tonyb
Dano,
You continue here, yet the list is so obviously irrelevant? …or is it.
“It took little time at all to find this reply (lovingly catalogued at Heartland) that has nothing to do with being skeptical of AGW [didn’t read it, did you.”
Dano, dano, dano, that is a comment (not included in the paper count) remember? But it is published in a peer-reviewed journal in rebuttal to the Doran survey. The comment supports skepticism,
“Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists,
but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is. Therefore, it is incorrect to conclude that there are no differences between the scientists. It cannot be excluded that there are such differences, which are highly relevant for the public debate on climate policy. This is so, even if the problems related to the
low-participant survey’s low response rate (30.7%) are ignored.”
“Getting published is not completing peer-review. The publishing part allows…peers to…um…review it.”
No kidding! Thanks for telling us the obvious.
“Come now. A speech published in a journal is not peer review (a speech as evidence?). You really don’t know what the process is at all, do you?”
Who says it was or it was counted?
Dano, there are a lot more listings then 450.
“was eviscerated after publication”
Where are the published comments on the paper? Now you are attempting to redefine peer-review as accepted by alarmist scientists?
“And Lindzen’s IR Iris was published, yet has not withstood peer review – no one uses it in their modeling”
Lindzen’s paper has only been cited 208 times, yet clearly no one cares because modellers have not integrated it? Is that only papers that modellers use now count? What kind of insanity is this?
“This is not how the world works.”
So getting a peer-reviewed paper published does not mean it was peer-reviewed and exists? Or does “how it works” means only approved by Dano and not “refuted” on some alarmist blog?
Yes Dano, I will turn the list over to you so you can delete all the peer-reviewed papers you don’t like and claim they do not exist… or better yet I can just keep adding to it as I have been.
REPLY: Note – “Dano” has no interest in facts or fairness, his trolliness exists online only to denegrate and his snarkery is legend. My best advice is to ignore him. He is irrelevant. – Anthony
“Wrong again (please read the comments before posting), Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and Scopus
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf”
Again sorry but Energy & Environment is not a recognized peer reviewed journal, yes I had read the disclaimer trying to say it is, but these are just lists they don’t define if a publication is peer reviewed in fact most of the lists mentioned make no comment if it is peer reviewed except EBSCO, and as ‘multi-science’ who publish E & E recently entered into sales and marketing representative relationship with EBSCO that is hardly an impartial relationship.
http://www2.ebsco.com/EN-US/NEWSCENTER/Pages/ViewArticle.aspx?QSID=293
Add to that the attitude towards global warming of both the editor and co-editor of E & E which could also not be called impartial.
Anthony
As you seem to be around at present can you tell me what the upshot was re the long thread over at CA in 2007 regarding Central Park temperatures?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1798
You posted comments and a photo of Belvedere weather station. I am researching this one for my little ice age thermometers site, and the difference in temperatures between CP and West Point miltary academy 50 miles away over the same period is striking.
CP appears to be greatly UHI influenced (plus some bad siting and that the reservoir in front of Belvedere became a grassed area which was badly compacted and relaid) but the allowance made for population seemed absurd.
I have around thirty papers on calculating UHI but not sure which is currently considered the ‘best.’ IMHO I think it depends on the individual circumstances of the urban area.
Thanks for any help you can give
Tonyb
REPLY: traveling at the moment and gearing up for presentation check with me later -A
REPLY: Note – “Dano” has no interest in facts or fairness, his trolliness exists online only to denegrate and his snarkery is legend. My best advice is to ignore him. He is irrelevant. – Anthony
We don’t get our own facts out here in reality, Tony.
I showed how the list does not support the claim.
I showed how some papers on the list do not support the claim.
These are facts here in reality. Sorry. Your italicized claims are baseless in fact here in reality, where out here denigration != refutation.
Sorry.
Best,
D
REPLY: But its “your” reality “Dano” and therein lies the problem. Like I said folks, best to ignore Dano he’s irrelevant. – Anthony
“Again sorry but Energy & Environment is not a recognized peer reviewed journal
Yes it is…
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
What do you think ISI is?
“Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.
They are both commercial operations.
Sorry but the alarmist smear that E&E is not peer-reviewed is a lie.
Joel Shore (12:13:17)
this is one of the anomalies with the notion of ghg’s trapping heat and so giving to stratospheric cooling, as the trend for the stratosphere on this data shows a stratospheric warming trend, albeit a slight one in th elast decade.
However, the notion that you have to look higher and higher into the atmosphere for global warming if it can’t be found in the LT I think is a fairly far fetched one when measured against temperatures.
stephen (06:28:57):
“…sorry but Energy & Environment is not a recognized peer reviewed journal…”
A search provided this definition of what peer review means:
I assume that E&E is a refereed journal. Maybe someone who knows could say if its submissions are refereed.
As for peer reviewing, we are all uner the misapprehension that if a paper’s research doesn’t follow the AGW thesis, then it isn’t acepted. However, peer-reviewers are like editors, and their role could be described as censors.
surely the most appropriate way to peer review a paper is to look at the strengths of the case and the data than on the reputation of the researcher. I remember Ouspensky (is he still on science degree reading lists?) commenting on this as early as the 1920’s – that science was becoming a public policy mechanism and moving away from ratiocination based on data.
whoops at P Wilson (07:00:31) :
MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER STRATOSPHERE LS5.1
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
That definition includes,
“…An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication.”
Yes it is a refereed (peer-reviewed) journal.
stephen gives his opinion:
“…the attitude towards global warming of both the editor and co-editor of E & E which could also not be called impartial.”
stephen, could you please give us your opinion of the impartiality of these climate peer review folks? Thanx.
“As for peer reviewing, we are all uner the misapprehension that if a paper’s research doesn’t follow the AGW thesis, then it isn’t acepted. However, peer-reviewers are like editors, and their role could be described as censors.”
Very true and you may be interested in the following,
The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp. 16-22, 2007)
– Stanley W. Trimble
Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
I notice the Heinz Hug’s papers are in the list. He co-operated with Jack Barrett years ago although his research is critical to understanding the radiative properties of c02.
Its clear that there is a c02 war, where those in favour want to refute research that shows its not happening whilst those against do likewise.
I don’t know how science lost its way from impartiality to advocacy, so I agree with some other post on another forum here that science, particularly climate science, has become frivolous. The argument is that if the paradigm is a fraudulent use of science then its opposite has to operate on the terms being used by its protagonists, and so it often descends into a conflict of persuasion and ad hom. At this point, climate science becomes sociology, with positivists on one side and anti-positivists on the other, than science. No offence to sociologists
Can someone tell me how this reference fits on the list?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/428799b.html
Nature 428, 799 (22 April 2004) | doi:10.1038/428799b
Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions
Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker
Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography & the Environment, Oxford University, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
Sir
Media coverage of conservation research is usually welcomed by the scientists involved, but there are pitfalls to heed. Damaging simplifications of research findings may expose conservationists to accusations of crying wolf, and play directly into the hands of anti-environmentalists. For example, in January 2004 it was widely reported in the UK print media that one million species would go extinct by 2050. The original report (Nature 427, 145–148; 2004), however, was based on 1,103 species and clearly stated that — as a consequence of climate change over the next 50 years — a variable proportion of land animals and plants might eventually go extinct.
We reviewed 29 reports in the local and national UK press, and found that many of the errors could be traced back to the press releases and agency newswires. In a press release from the lead author’s university, the figure of a million species appears along with the claim that a quarter of all land animals and plants may go extinct — but eventually, not by 2050. Newswires ranged from the cautious (“Hundreds of species of land plants and animals around the globe could vanish or be on the road to extinction over the next 50 years if global warming continues” — Dow Jones International) to the sensational (“Global warming could wipe out a quarter of all species of plants and animals on earth by 2050” — Reuters).
Unsurprisingly, subsequent newspaper articles in the national and local press were highly inaccurate: 21 of the 29 reports we reviewed claimed that a million or more species would be extinct by 2050. Two reports even claimed that one-third of the entire world’s species would become extinct. No reports specified the full range of uncertainty (5.6% to 78.6% of the species studied would be committed to future extinction) and only two correctly stated that most species would become extinct well after 2050 (full details of our survey can be seen at http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/biodiversity/pubs/index.html).
Politicians and conservationists repeated these statements. The European Union’s environment commissioner Margot Wallström, for example, commented on “the recently published study that suggests global warming could wipe out a third of the planet’s species by 2050”.
How can the conservation community prevent a repeat of such wide-scale media misrepresentation? Practical steps might be for high-profile journals to restrict press releases in the climate-change arena to research papers that present clear and unequivocal findings, and for scientists to write to newspaper editors and politicians to clarify misleading media articles. More generally, any institute, journal or individual involved in putting out a press release has a responsibility to ensure that it is both accurate and perfectly clear.
Smokey (11:31:07) :
To repeat: I am open to changing my mind, if anyone can provide replicable, testable and falsifiable data measuring the temperature change caused by human emissions of CO2. That should not be difficult — if the CO2=CAGW conjecture is valid.
I was tempted to draw comparisons with the tobacco industry’s former defence against litigation that terminally ill patients had to prove that it was a brand X cigarette that caused their lung cancer and nothing else.
However, let’s consider another comparison instead. It is well accepted that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion after the Colorado River changed its course some 17 million years ago. Now, if anyone can provide replicable, testable and falsifiable data to prove this conjecture… then fine. Otherwise obviously there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River.
Correct, Smokey?
The reason for making this slightly childish analogy is to clarify that Smokey is deliberately asking, and most likely hoping for the impossible. Apparently the theoretical foundation and observational basis of CO2 spectra and anthropogenic origin of the last 50 years is just not good enough for him, so exactly what kind of data is Smokey willing to accept? Is he proposing we all stop producing CO2 completely for the next 20 years to see if it has any effect on the temperature? Or maybe 100 or 200 years? How often would we need to repeat the experiment to get a good enough confidence level? Or maybe he suggests we just double or triple the CO2 and see if it has any effect?
Presumably if Smokey were presented with the question of how the Grand Canyon was formed, he would insist on diverting some rivers and waiting 17 million years to see if the erosion was identical for all of them, rather than accepting the estimates of erosion worked out by the geologists. And of course if they eroded at different rates, then that would prove that the experiment was inconclusive and that the Grand Canyon must be formed some other way.
The fact is that we are already performing a grand experiment with CO2, with no controls, no planning, and no way to start again if it turns out wrong.
T.
“Can someone tell me how this reference fits on the list?”
The paper explicitly states that the media is exaggerating claims of species extinction in relation to global warming. This supports skepticism of alarmist species extinction claims regarding global warming.
This is obvious, no?
P Wilson,
As a peer reviewer myself, you are correct that once it gets to the reviewer, they are largely impartial as long as their isn’t a clear breakdown of the scientific method. However, the person who gets to review it is chosen by hand by the editor and staff of the journal. It is not chosen at random, and there lies the problem. Even in my own field of astronomy, I have seen the editors purposely chose a reviewer they know will reject a paper they think is crap. So I see how it is possible for a large number of anti-AGW papers to be rejected in this way. How many peer reviewers do you think are anti-AGW? Probably zero, and that’s by design.
“The fact is that we are already performing a grand experiment with CO2, with no controls, no planning, and no way to start again if it turns out wrong.”
Let’s apply Pascal’s Wager to your argument.
Poptech (08:55:39) : It isn’t at all obvious that it belongs on the list. In fact, I think it’s obvious it shouldn’t be on the list. It’s a letter (probably not peer reviewed, by the way) criticizing the media response to a paper (and perhaps the press release), NOT the paper itself.
As such, I don’t see how it can belong. The list purports to be a listing of sceptical science; it should not include commentaries of how the media misreports science.
Tom P, that is a ridiculous and completely irrelevant analogy.
The entire AGW thing is equivalent to “Are you still beating your wife?”… either a yes or no answer implies guilt, especially when the only accepted answer is yes or no.
One more time for the cheap seats: MOST of the regulars here came from a position of buying into the hypothesis, then realized that there is no credible evidence and eventually realizing that the hypothesis is not, and CAN NOT be, the correct explanation for any climate changes.
Again, CREDIBLE is the key word. I have looked, and so has Smokey (sorry for speaking for you, Smokey), and so have pretty much all of the regulars here. It’s not a question of denial, or disbelief, or agenda driven belief. Every single time I see some kind of “gotcha” pro-AGW post, either the logic or the data is childishly simple to refute.
It is NOT my responsibility to “prove” that CO2 is responsible for the evils attributed to it. It is, however, YOUR responsibility to prove that it is, if you so believe. The alleged warming is simply not happening. CO2 is plant food, and a scarce resource at that.
Now, if there was a credible alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, then fine, I’m sure anyone interested would consider it.
Correcting that paragraph:
It is NOT my responsibility to “prove” that CO2 is NOT responsible for the evils attributed to it. It is, however, YOUR responsibility to prove that it IS, if you so believe. The alleged warming is simply not happening. CO2 is plant food, and a scarce resource at that.
“It’s a letter (probably not peer reviewed, by the way)”
It is a Correspondence which may or may not be peer-reviewed. I honestly don’t know and thus I did not count it in the 450, there are many more listings than the 450 papers.
“The list purports to be a listing of sceptical science; it should not include commentaries of how the media misreports science.”
Why not? This is part of the global warming debate and supports skepticism of alarmist claims.
Tom P (08:53:11) :
I was tempted to draw comparisons with the tobacco industry’s former defence against litigation that terminally ill patients had to prove that it was a brand X cigarette that caused their lung cancer and nothing else. However, let’s consider another comparison instead. (blah, blah, blah blah). In short, you’ve got nothing but the usual, mindless AGW rhetoric.
Thought so.
REPLY: But its “your” reality “Dano” and therein lies the problem. Like I said folks, best to ignore Dano he’s irrelevant. – Anthony
Sorry to disagree with you, Anthony, but to the extent that Dano represents one side of the debate he is relevant. By posting here, Dano gives us some insight into the quality of the pro-AGW arguments and into which issues the pro-AGWers are scared of.
My personal judgement is that their arguments are being overwhelmed by the evidence, and that Andrew’s list of papers has hit a very tender nerve. Others may see it differently of course.
Mike Jonas,
You’re right that Andrew’s list hit a nerve. The alarmist crowd has been trying mightily to keep skeptics censored.
WUWT gives a forum to warmists — unlike realclimate, which routinely censors inconvenient facts. Here’s a typical example: click
Poptech,
You reply to my ‘top 10’ was inaccurate in one or two respects. My feedback….
1. (Archibald) was only ever published in E&E so its unlikely to have been read by anyone interested in rebutting it. Given that it would have failed as a first year undergraduate essay you should perhaps be grateful.
2. The comment is in press at JGR. It will appear, believe me, the paper was a shocker.
3. The original publication was in that high-profile climate publication ‘The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons’ ( Voice of The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. “A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943” ) one imagines most reputable journals would have much better use of their space than to rebut this nonsense.
4. Response submitted to International Journal of Modern Physics B.
5. From the published Rebuttal by W. Aeschbach-Hertig here.
It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.
6. Again, published in a obscure Journal of Hydrology, so unlikely to been considered worthy of attention by the mainstream climate science discipline.
7. I thought the resignation of the board was more telling, but since you ask …
Writing in the 8 July issue of the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and 12 colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom endorse the position on climate change and greenhouse gases taken by AGU in 1998. Specifically, they say that “there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate changes, including increases in global-mean surface temperatures, due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil-fuel burning.”
The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard‑Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed.
8, 9, 10. Huh? The article I linked to was published in the Transactions of the AGU, plug it into Google Scholar and you will find it has been cited 21 times in the literature.
You have to do better than that as you only managed to find two published responses, both of which were refuted.
You have miscounted. Of the 10, the actual score is:-
5 were the subject of Published Responses
2 Responses submitted
3 are ‘climate’ papers published in a social sciences journal, a Private Physicians journal and a Journey of Hydrology respectively. If they had been accepted by the Journal of Climate, the lack of a published response might have been significant.
But they weren’t.
cheers,
PC.
Poptech (10:53:35) :
“Why not? This is part of the global warming debate and supports skepticism of alarmist claims.”
What?
Suppose I published a paper saying the climate sensitivity was 2.5 to 3.5 C for a sustained doubling in CO2, and the media then started reporting I said it was 5 C. In response somebody else then wrote a letter complaining about the media coverage and wondering about how scientists could interact with the media to avoid such confusion.
And you really think the following, ““Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small” qualifies something for a sceptic list?
You would then add that letter to a list of ‘sceptic science’ publications? Really? No, a sceptic paper would be one showing some mistake I made, leaving the sensitivity at 1 C.
Have you addressed the question of why you included ice age CO2-lag references? I scanned the thread, but didn’t see anything.
Yikes, my last comment got hopeless garbled. Sorry, my carelessness in editing; it is not readable. My apologies to all.
The passage “You would then add that letter to a list of ’sceptic science’ publications? Really? No, a sceptic paper would be one showing some mistake I made, leaving the sensitivity at 1 C.” should appear after “avoid such confusion.”
Brendan H (22:51:18): Scepticism is usually regarded as something like habitual doubt, whether general or particular.
Sure. Usually I define myself as an honest positivist,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
At some point, when a model has been able to predict the future ”again and again”, I actually think that it has been validated and verified and I must therefore say that I do not agree with the sceptical viewpoint that it is only possible to invalidate a theory. For all practical purposes all everyday mathematical model of dynamical system, like the simulation models running in nuclear power plants, are so reliable that the minuscule deviation between theory and experiment is so negligible that it is of academic interest only.
I cannot say that the deviation between theory and experiment is anywhere near negligible for the climate models; they have failed over and over again to predict the future….
Tom P (08:53:11) :
the sort of data that one is willing to accept is temperatures, c02 levels, ice volumes, precipitation, and what these various factors were predicted to be 20 years ago, and how they are recorded to have changed over time, notwithstanding past proxies. Since you mention c02 spectra, one of the characteristics of c02 is its ability to lose effect in a warming world, so supposing the greenhouse efect takes place at groud level to increase radiation to an average 9 microns, then c02 loses its effect almost entirely at terrestrial level and the percentage of radiation caught by c02 would decrease. It would then depend on the “enhanced greenhouse effect” although the physical mechanism by which subzero temperatures above can cause increased temperatures near the ground still needs explaining.
although I disagree with Ferdinand Engelbeen about the respective attribution of c02 increase over the years, he’s right about its radiative properties.
Tom P (08:53:11)
It is well accepted that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion after the Colorado River changed its course some 17 million years ago. Now, if anyone can provide replicable, testable and falsifiable data to prove this conjecture… then fine. Otherwise obviously there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River.
CodeTech (10:41:11) :
Now, if there was a credible alternative theory for the formation of the Grand Canyon, then fine, I’m sure anyone interested would consider it.
Actually the origins of the Grand Canyon have probably been the subject of nearly as many contentious speculations as this climate farce, virtually from the day geologists first laid eyes on it. While the fact that the Colorado River changed course 17 million years ago about the time the San Andreas fault formed the Bay of California, from draining northeast from its headwaters to its present southwestern path, is indeed widely accepted, almost everything after has been in dispute, with origination hypotheses running from long slow erosion over 17 million years, to various cataclysmic events, as few as 5-6 million years ago, or even as as recent as only 1 million years.
In a sense, this makes the analogy to the climate debate fairly apt since you have general agreement that some warming has occurred in conjunction with rise in the level of atmospheric CO2, but from there it comes down to whose SWAG you find more convincing. Personally, I can’t see that any of them are.
The analogy is strengthened further by the fact that the creationists have gotten involved in the debate in recent times and have added the element of agenda driven science to mix, to make it even more like CO2 debate. But the less said about that the better. I don’t want to bring Leif’s wrath down on my head.
So here is an example of peer review, taken from
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf
Another example of elementary arithmetical inaccuracy occurs on page 3 of
the Summary for Policymakers as originally published. The 2,500 scientists of
the IPCC make the following alarmist statement, which has been widely and
uncritically quoted by journalists worldwide:
“The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to
2005.”
In December 1995 CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa was 360ppmv, and in
December 2005 it was 379ppmv, an increase of 19ppmv. That is not 20%. It
is 5%. However, the forcing from this increase is considerably less than 5%,
because each additional quantum of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
has less warming effect than its predecessors: the temperature effect of
increased carbon dioxide concentrations is not linear but logarithmic. Using
the UN’s own logarithmic CO2 forcing formula, δF = 5.3 ln(C / C0) (IPCC,
1995, 2001, 2007) and taking C0 as unity, the total natural and
anthropogenic forcing from CO2 to 1995 was 5.3 ln(360 / 1) = 31.20 wm-2,
only one-fifth of the 148-wm-2 natural greenhouse effect. CO2 forcing to 2005
was 5.3 ln (380 / 1) = 31.48 watts per square metre. The increase in
forcing was thus just 0.28 wm-2, or just over 1%. We may summarize the
breathtaking magnitude of this erroneous exaggeration as follows:
1995-2005: UN’s stated increase in CO2 forcing: 20%
1995-2005: Increase in concentration of CO2: 5%
1995-2005: Increase in CO2 forcing effect: 1%
This 20-fold exaggeration of the increase in the radiative forcing effect of
atmospheric CO2 has been quietly removed from the revised version of the
Summary for Policymakers.
So it seems that peer reviewing is unaccountable or selective, and is no guarantee of veracity
Phil Clarke:
Yet, you post here. May I take a guess as to why you post here? Thank you:
You post here because WUWT is the “Best Science” site on the internet. It gets much more traffic than the propaganda site realclimate, which routinely censors posts that question its AGW orthodoxy. It is all alarmism, all the time. It is an echo chamber, where the same posters tell each other the same thing 24/7, and the owners and moderators censor opposing points of view.
So I would like to ask your opinion. Since you, and any warmist for that matter, may freely post here without being censored, and since numerous posters here have commented many times over the last couple of years that that their polite but AGW-skeptical posts have been deleted by realclimate without comment, or were held permanently in moderation and were never allowed to be seen, would you agree that realclimate fears honest, open debate?
And further, would you agree that if one side in a debate goes so far as to engage in the deliberate censorship of the opposing side’s arguments, that those doing the censoring know that their own arguments are so weak and full of holes that they feel they must silence any contrary opinion? And doesn’t that amount to propaganda?
Just wondering what you think of the censorship situation. You don’t even have to respond. But if you do answer, please, no prevaricating. Take a stand. What they are doing is either right, or wrong. No equivocating or waffling [and to be fair, it’s not only realclimate; censorship of scientifically skeptical arguments is typical of many alarmist blogs, while skeptics’ sites generally allow all points of view].
Dave Wendt,
You mention in passing the creationist spin on geology… which seems to me a FAR more appropriate comparison to what I’m seeing in AGW circles. And yes, I am going to go there.
As I understand it, the idea is that all of the geologic processes that need explaining now require explaining within a context of a 6000 year old planet. That means 17 million year formations are out of the question. Similarly, in AGW all warming or unusual climate that needs explaining must be explained by CO2 or Methane or CFCs or whatever else is somehow an anthropogenic GHG.
These constraints make a theory untenable and ludicrous to outside observers, but appear completely consistent to their followers. I know some of my parents’ peers would argue almost to the death for the entire “young earth” idea, however to me the evidence is not even remotely credible.
Yes, Credibility is a major factor to me. I would rather listen to a radical longhaired rebel who can’t spell properly and made a few minor arithmetic mistakes in a paper than read the 532nd tree ring proxy paper based on the same faulty data, when it comes from a highly financed well known institution that has already demonstrated they are a politically driven organization. To me, the guy fresh out of the field may have more credibility than the guy whose farthest venture from his office is to the cafeteria for lunch.
MANY people here have continually noted that ALL “skeptics” are marginalized, shouted down, and are the subject of jokes. In contrast, the only warmists I have animosity toward are the Al Gore, James Hansen types, who deliberately and intentionally go for attention. And worse, are directly profiting from the scare (none of this shadowy “oil money” connection crap, please, it’s not even the faintest bit credible).
Smokey – you have failed to answer my questions, and indulged yourself in many of the debating sins you accuse me of, such as appeal to authority, and ad hom arguments. ..but, since you ask
I congratulate WUWT on winning the Science Blog of the Year award, and its strong showing in the nominations this year ( I see Denial Depot is in third place ). Does this make it the best Science blog? Well, no it makes it the most popular blog in the Science category, ( hint: most scientists are able to read a simple phase diagram ) winning, if memory serves, with about 14K votes in a poll that permitted multiple votes. For no good reason at all this recent WUWT comment comes to mind…
“I have a dozen quite legitimate e-mail addresses (personal and business) and I’ve just used each one ….
Anyhow, Since you, and any warmist for that matter, may freely post here without being censored
Tell that to those who have been banned from posting. How would you characterise this? To me it looks very much like a poster being censored, and falsely accused. Ho hum.
I post at RC also, as pjclarke, and I would not describe moderation there as perfect either, however, as Joel has pointed out, it is a characteristic of many contrarians that they carry on repeating arguments long after they have been discredited, simply turning up the volume. Witness Ian Plimer trotting out the volcanoes-emit-more-CO2-than-people nonsense yet again. How many times must the CO2-lags-temp rebuttal be repeated?
Indeed how many times must the absurd claim that a shortlived cooling or flattening of the temp curve falsifies AGW be batted back over the net? Temperatures did not describe a perfectly straight flat line pre-industrialisation, so how does the lack of a perfectly straight upwardly sloping line contradict the existence of a gradually-acting greenhouse gas forcing now? Have La Nina and El Nino ceased? The solar cycle come to a halt? Of course not. Contrary to your repeated cherry-pick, the average temperature now is about 0.5C warmer than it was in the seventies and we have just experienced the warmest July-October on record, in the middle of a solar minimum. Ho hum.
So one can hardly blame RC if they snip posts making the same tired old arguments, or attempts to derail the thread, their comments policy is more focussed than WUWT, its true, as befits a site dedicated to scientific discussion, however I would be interested in any examples of posts being deleted in breach of their stated policy, especially points 3 through 7. Are you aware of any such examples?
I am not really interested in a ‘Is RealClimate Better that WUWT’ discussion. They serve different markets and have different goals. If I want a considered discussion of a development in climate science, from climate scientists, I go to RC. If I want to see Al Gore ridiculed for making a trivial slip on a TV chatshow, I come here.
cheers,
PC.
I’ve posted the link to this list on several blogs & it drives the pro AGWer’s completely nuts. Down falls another of their blatant lies – ‘there is no peer reviewed science that rejects AGW’. Of course their natural retort is to say the papers were written by those on industry payrolls, but that double edged sword seems to cut deeper on their pro stance than the anti as they roll in the govt. funded research funds.
Phil Clarke
I think the Antarctica co2 thread demonstrated a transparent problem solving approach. I seem to remember I even congratulated you on your part in it and I have also sided with Joel on occasions. I have also commented on Plimers dubious volcanoes data myself.
You and other warmists constantly confuse sceptics with deniers. Most of us have got here from a position of believing initially in the science but have had cause to subsequently doubt it. It is a rational thought process despite what you may think.
Personally I enjoy yours and Joels input but you both seem to think we are irrational and can be easily fobbed off with half baked data. Most of the papers cited here that I have read seem reasonable-that does not mean to say that everything is though.
Best regards
Tonyb
Jag har inte varit på den här bloggen så länge men känner redan hur jag börjar tröttna. Jag trodde att klimatskeptikerna (till vilka jag åtminstone delvis räknade mig själv innan) ville ta reda på vad som faktiskt händer med klimatet. Men så verkar inte vara fallet, utan det primära målet är att visa att IPCC har fel. Jag har inte orkat läsa genom mer än en tiondel av artiklarna här men dom handlar ju nästan uteslutande om att IPCCs klimatmodeller inte ger rätta prediktioner. Vissa lyfter även fram andra förklaringar, vilka ofta också kan vara antropogena men inte nödvändigtvis direkt kopplade till koldioxid. Många handlar om tolkningar av osäkra och svårtolkade data där man måste gör urval och i princip så kan man göra urval efter vad man vill visa (även om alla naturligtvis nogrant redogör för hur detta är kontrollerat för, gäller för övrigt även de artiklar som förespråkar AWG). Ingen artikel har ännu så länge lämnat en bättre förklaring än den som ges i IPCC4-rapporten (men det är ju förstås min subjektiva bedömning). Flera är bara skeptiska på en viss punkt eller till en viss del mot IPCCs bedömning, men det genomgående är att klimatmodellerna är fel.
Självklart är dom fel, jag kan utan att sticka ut hakan särskilt mycket påstå att det finns ingen i dag i världen som skulle kunna göra en simulering över utvecklingen av hela jordens klimat i hela atmosfären utan att få med ganska grova fel. Det finns för många okända varibler och för många felkällor. Detta är inget konstigt alls så länge man är medveten om det. Om inte forskarna i fältet är allt för polariserade i olika läger så blir ju varje ny rapport som hittar en avvikelse från modellen ett steg närmare att förstå hur verkligheten egentligen fungerar. Med denna kunskap rätt använd så kan man kontinuerligt förfina modellerna så att simuleringarna blir rätt någonstans.
Men det är uppenbart att här är för mycket pengar och politik inblandat för att en konflikt inte ska uppstå. Inläggen här handlar ju långt i från endast om koldioxidens skuld eller inte, här idiot- och inkompetensförklaras alla som verkar ha en åsikt för AGW (vetenskapsmän, politiker, journalister eller de förhatliga ekonomiprofessorerna). I vissa fall ifrågsätts att vi överhuvud taget skulle ha en klimatförändring.
Men så märklig kan väl inte den åsikten vara ändå? Det är väl bara att gå utomhus och se vad som händer, har ni provat det? Själv har jag i olika former i jobbet (i och utanför universitetet) eller på fritiden noterat att våren kommer tidigare för varje år, det sker en förändring i såväl vegetationsammansättningar som i faunan. Tveklöst sker en förskjutning av klimatzonerna norrut. Häckla på bara men isen smälter och havet stiger, kanske inte med alamerande hastighet men inte desto mindre så sker det. Om någon mot förmodan skulle vara intresserad av att få detaljer så hör av er.
Phil Clarke,
Well, I gave you a great opportunity, and you blew it. I asked for a simple Yes, or a No, or Ignore. Instead, you prevaricated. I knew you would. That’s why I warned you about it.
FYI, there are way too many folks here who have been censored from RC for it to have anything to do with their vague rules. Face it, they censor contrary opinion.
I posted upthread, in the link titled More Fraudulent Censorship at RealClimate multiple examples of typical RC censorship. That kind of censorship goes on at realclimat All. The. Time. [BTW, I just ran across that site today for the first time.]
Some folks were also commenting here a while back that tamino, or maybe it was climateprogress, removed all the vowels from their posts. They pasted examples, too. Try reading a few paragraphs sans vowels. Maybe you could explain that, too, while you’re being RC’s apologist.
Realclimate censors non-alarmist points of view for the same reason that Gavin Schmidt tucks his tail between his porky legs and runs off yelping whenever he’s challenged to a debate by a prominent skeptic: they don’t have the facts to support their weak AGW conjecture. All they have are computer models and papers written by grant hounds citing papers written by other grant hounds in a mutual circular citation-fest. What they don’t have is empirical evidence.
Climate catastrophe is a half baked invention designed to extract the maximum number of $Billions from unsuspecting taxpayers. But the planet is laughing at their hubris: as CO2 rises, the globe is cooling. Explain that. Hey, maybe that non-existent global warming is hidden in some mysterious pipeline we haven’t checked yet. Sure. Maybe that’s it.
You go right ahead and believe that RC doesn’t heavily censor comments that contradict their True Beliefs. We know better. Until the frightened Gavin Schmidt works up the nerve to publicly debate someone like Monckton [who will easily rub his nose in the playground sand in front of the whole world], his only recourse is to continue censoring opposing points of view.
You’ve got some HE-RO there, Phil. Whatta guy, eh?
It is unfortunate that so many sources have been misrepresented here, and that so many irrelevant and refuted papers are present. I cannot understand why long lists of nonsense are a recurring theme for skeptics, such as “petitions” which are bankrupt in quality. Furthermore, the science is still waiting for one “legitimate” argument against AGW.
Anthony, I really don’t understand why you continue to sink yourself lower in the ground by posting this stuff.
Det sker ovasett om det är drivet av människans aktiviteter eller inte och det kommer definitivt att påverka oss om utveckligen fortsätter. Effekten av att klimatzonerna förskjuts kommer oavsett vad som anses om koldioxidens positiva egenskaper för växter att bli dramatisk och något vi måste anpassa oss till exempelvis då det gäller vattenhushållning och livsmedelsproduktion.
Det finns en del av mig som inte bryr sig särskilt mycket om varför klimatet ändras men som tycker att det viktiga är att vi anpassar oss till det. Skälet är att jag egentligen inte har särskilt stor tillit till att vi skulle kunna lösa problemet även om AGW hypotesen är helt korrekt. Så oavsett om det är människan eller naturen så behöver vi anpassa oss. Mitt intresse i att få reda på vad som egentligen sker är för att få en uppfattning om hur mycket vi kommer att behöva anpassa oss. Är processen helt naturlig så finns chansen att den naturligt klingar av och att detta går att förutsäga, gäller AGW är vi rökta =).
Jag har läst massor de senaste månaderna, men inte blivit särdeles mycket klokare i klimatfrågan även om jag lärt mig en hel del. Sedan jag upptäckte denna bloggen så måste jag ju säga att jag förvånas över skeptiskernas argumentationsteknik. Väldigt aggresiv och mycket tyckande, detta förvånar mig. Jag hade förväntat mig att det skulle vara mycket argument understödda av forskning. Men där är det snarast AGW-sidan som framstår saklig (därmed inte sagt att de har rätt), sedan måste ni sätta stopp för G. Ribbing. Det är en katastrof för trovärdigheten när man tar “vilka artiklar som helst” och felciterar dem för att lyfta fram sitt budskap. Det kanske fungerar för stunden i pressen, men att bli pulvriserad gång på gång gör att åtminstone jag tappar förtroendet.
chriscolose,
It is unfortunate that you can’t wrap your head around the fact that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove.
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been run up the flag pole, and they expect everyone to salute it. Sorry about that, but unless the proponents provide empirical, measurable facts showing that a given increase in CO2 results in a given temperature increase, that hypothesis fails.
There’s a reason they claim that every weather event, every polar bear, every mosquito in Alaska and every three headed frog discovered is proof of AGW: because they have no empirical, reproducible, falsifiable evidence that CO2 causes measurable global warming, or that CO2 is a problem.
But their silly excuses are fun to watch.
chriscolose (15:30:50) :
Yeah, it’s kind of like claims that “99.44 % of climate scientists agree” or thereabouts.
Complete waste of time.
Phil Clarke (12:11:56) :
1. No published response (excuse noted)
2. Defended by third party,
Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
– David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox
3. No Published response (excuse noted)
4. Publication will include author’s rebuttal (pending)
5. Defended by author,
Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. ChilingarM
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar
6. No Published response (excuse noted)
7. No Published response (that is a news release that includes the discredited Michael Mann, a proper response would be in the journal the paper was published to allow a rebuttal from the author)
8,9,10. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen have since found the discrepancy lies with the land based instrument record.
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (PDF)
“Over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. […]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. […]
…one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, … In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero.”
I will support that,
5 were the subject of published responses (2 were directly defended by the authors, the last 3 defended by more recent findings)
2 Responses submitted (1 directly defended by third party, the other’s defense pending publication)
Your other excuses are noted.
carrot eater (12:13:58) :
And you really think the following, “Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures…”
I don’t believe I have to post more than this phrase for anyone to clearly see why this supports skepticism.
“Have you addressed the question of why you included ice age CO2-lag references?”
I thought this one was obvious, if temperatures are rising before CO2 then clearly CO2 is not responsible for the rise in temperature. (yes I have heard the excuses on this)
Phil Clarke (14:38:06) :
“Temperatures did not describe a perfectly straight flat line pre-industrialisation, so how does the lack of a perfectly straight upwardly sloping line contradict the existence of a gradually-acting greenhouse gas forcing now?”
Because if there is something out there which is powerful enough to stop greenhouse forcing, even potentially temporarily, in its tracks, and we don’t know what it is, it calls into question whether we have fingered the right culprit.
Well Smokey, inter alia I asked you which of the papers listed above delivered the killer blow to the AGW hypothesis, and I also asked you for an example of RealClimate ‘censorship’ that was in breach of that blog’s published comment policy. Can we expect an answer to either challenge anytime soon?
Bluster, however, we have in abundance. Well, I gave you a great opportunity, and you blew it. I asked for a simple Yes, or a No, or Ignore. Instead, you prevaricated. I knew you would. That’s why I warned you about it.
Nope. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension can see that my answer was No.
FYI, there are way too many folks here who have been censored from RC for it to have anything to do with their vague rules. Face it, they censor contrary opinion.
Name three of them. Ah, but you won’t, will you?
Some folks were also commenting here a while back that tamino, or maybe it was climateprogress, removed all the vowels from their posts.
What colour is the sky in your world, Smokey?
Gavin Schmidt tucks his tail between his porky legs and runs off yelping whenever he’s challenged to a debate
That’ll be an ad hominem argument then. Here is Gavin ‘running away’ from debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGa6_k00Cus
as CO2 rises, the globe is cooling. Explain that.
Just as soon as you provide some evidence for a cooling globe. While we are waiting, perhaps you could explain this?
Frankly, Smokey, I am struggling to find a definition of the word troll that doesn’t cover your style of ‘debate’. Can you help me out?
“It is unfortunate that so many sources have been misrepresented here, and that so many irrelevant and refuted papers are present. I cannot understand why long lists of nonsense are a recurring theme for skeptics,”
None of the sources have been misrepresented, none are irrelevant and the existence of a “refutation” does not make a paper invalid.
What I cannot understand is why so many alarmists are rabidly posting about something that they claim is irrelevant.
If anyone has an interest, “Måns B” is writing in Swedish. Here is a translator service. It’s a little spotty, but you’ll probably get the gist.
Just a few posts back you criticised me for cited non-peer-reviewed sources, yet here you are relying on an article published by the Friends of Science. Did it see the light of day in an actual scientific journal? No, I thought not.
Once again, I fear I must correct you, regarding Paper (7), contrary to your assertion, the article I referred you to described a paper in the peer-reviewed literature. Google Scholar may be useful.
cheers,
PC.
I am just beginning an Environmental Science Degree and have been interested in finding information about AGW and how much of the science is fact. I approached the matter as a person who believed that we had contributed somewhat to warming as there has been some warming going on in my lifetime.
In order to find information, I started searching the net for different sites and – primarily – for sites that contained recent information (ie not with articles that most recent date were 5 or more years ago) as I believe science is always changing and expanding, more recent articels would be more beneficial.
I have seen many people both here, and at RC who are stating we should rely on real world observations and evidence. This I have attempted to do to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on your view), attempting to research this science and using blogs like RC, WUWT, ClimateAudit and any other site that happens to pop up under searches in google for Global Warming (including sites such as 350.org coming to mind) and downloading and trying to make it through parts of reports such as the IPCC 2007 report and any techincal paper I see linked, I have started to fall squarely in the sceptic/denial side of events.
This has happened because of several factors;
a) No matter how hard I look, (and I have followed and tried to read an awefull lot of papers and “evidence”) I am still having trouble finding evidence that supports AGW. I have seen papers state the forcing believed to occur from lab tests, and I have seen data that shows we have warmed a little over the last 100 years. What I have been unable to find, is sufficient evidence that warming recently is un-natural. As a lay person I don;t even know how its possible to separate a warming of at most 0.7 degrees over the last 100 years over the natural changes of the last few millenia or especially going back further in history.
b) I have been completely and utterly turned off sites such RC and one or two other pro-AGW blogs. I spent hours combing through reports, entries and comments on RC only to constantly see the owners of that site belittling, insulting and being completely dismissive of any comment posted that disagrees with a conclusion that they have made. The reason I do not like that blog has now nothing to do with climate science at all – simply that the “Scientists” on the site come across so completely arrogant that I no longer have any faith in what they say – even if what they say is true. In addition, because I like trying to get all sides, I went to the link by someone above – http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/#comment-591 – and thought ok, a blog I hadn’t yet heard of, whats this one like?
I then spent the last half hour reading both the main article this comment link was based on, and then as many of the comments as I could get through focusing on the responses by the owner and once again I find the same complete dismissal and arrogance coming through as I found in RC and once again I have been completely turned off a blog.
The reason that I am posting this is because I am still not sure what affect if any AGW has on climate. I keep following these discussions and links hoping to get a clearer picture. However I also understand how so many people are jumping behind sceptical views of AGW. As person who really doesn’t have any degree currently or experience, or high math skills, I am required to trust the scientist’s behind these reports. In other words, I cannot critique papers, or see flaws in equations, all I can do have faith in the person doing the work that they are experienced and know what they are talking about and if the idea that AGW is going to cause so many issues, I have to be certain that I can trust these scientists that they are using the data properly and that as a scientist are open to both points of view, even when their personal feelings may lie in one direction or the other. Unfortunately, the attitude and dirisive nature of the majority of posts on pro AGW sites have left me feeling like I cannot trust these scientists as far as I could throw them – which then makes my not trust their results whether its true or not.
I have seen many people comment that this Blog or ClimateAudit contains biased or not complete data (which could be said really for both blogs), but the reason I have now stuck more to reading these is because the discussions taking place seem to be about the science and not their opinions of the science. Post after post on ClimateAudit has people taking the initial post, subjecting it to their own questions, resubmitting their own data, having their data looked at and critisized and for the vast majority of posts seems to have people whos only interest is to find the best use, and most accurate use of the data provided. In comparison to the two previous pro-AGW blogs, makes for a more inviting atmosphere and a place where I can ask questions.
I know for instance that if I have an issue with climate science, I can ask here or at ClimateAudit and I will likely get 3 or 4 helpfull responses attempting to clarify proceedures, data and answers. Quite frankly I cannot even stomach to post a question on RC because I feel all I will get is a comment that comes accross as “don;t be an idiot, look at the research” – something I have been trying to do for weeks.
As this is a wall of text I will sum it up, I am concerned about both sides of this argument. If the AGW theory turns out to be not as bad or even not accurate at all of real world situation then we have wasted so much time and effort that could have been put to use erradicating the plethora of other human issues plaguing the world. If on the other hand there is a large issue, pro-AGW scientists need to stop having such a high and might attitude in relation to the topic because it really is not helping promote the cause. In addition, this constant look at the data see for yourself response is also not helping because I have tried and am coming to the “wrong” conclusion according to the “mainstream” view. I find it then highly ironic that after attempting to look at the research, I come away with questions only to be told I am an idiot and look at the research o_O.
Poptech,
Sorry, but articles about “Claim of Largest Flood on Record Proves False” has nothing to do with the reality of AGW. It is a distraction. You have distorted the work of Caillon et al, of Bond et al, Monnin et al, etc, etc, etc on the ice core record, as anyone can see if they simply read them. You have misrepresented some of the work by Camp and Tung on solar influences. You seem to think that a paper on anything, such as a glacier recession being due to precipitation rather than temperature, is a “skeptical view.” It isn’t. You have misrepresented papers by Mayewski, Shindell, Winter, etc. You’ve misrepresented the Tsonis paper, as can be shown by the article In fact, it is harder to find something on this list which actually does present a “skeptical view” than one that doesn’t. Other resources such as “Energy and Environment” are not acceptable by general academic standards, while others such as Gerlich and Tscheuschner make the most ridiculous claims (e.g., the greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics) which is contrary to other papers you list. In short, you have intentionally lied to a large audience of people who you know will not take extensive time out to check the sources, but will simply be marveled at a big number like “450.” Sorry, but I do not think that this is acceptable, which is why this page should be removed. If not, I recommend many of these authors (such as the ones I have listed) be contacted to see if the interpretation here is consistent with the paper, and I assure you many of them will not be happy.
I have no problem interacting with “skpetics,” but if you are going to resort to academic dishonesty to get any semblance of a “viewpoint” that you have across, it’s just not worth it.
Michael R,
It is this type of behavior I have outlined above which is why many scientists are “frustrated” with the denial community. They have offered nothing of substance aside from smoke screens, errors, cherry-picked data, etc with a non-technical target audience. I have no interest in defending ‘AGW’ here (which is simply the consequence of basic physics, and it has shown to hold remarkable explanatory and predictive power in the literature). I am simply pointing out the ease at which commenters here can become confused by impressive lists which are lacking any substance.
“Just a few posts back you criticised me for cited non-peer-reviewed sources, yet here you are relying on an article published by the Friends of Science. Did it see the light of day in an actual scientific journal? No, I thought not.”
FOS did not publish it, they just have a copy of the PDF available. (I link to it there because the DNSC link gets changed frequently)
Here is the link from the Danish National Space Center,
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (PDF)
Which carries slightly more credibility than a blog.
Regarding (7) if you have a paper link to it.
Poptech (16:41:36) :
“None of the sources have been misrepresented, none are irrelevant and the existence of a “refutation” does not make a paper invalid.”
No, the mere existence of a refutation doesn’t make a paper invalid. One would have to look at the entire context of the topic, read/understand the other literature in that field, and make a judgment. Anyway, you’re just making a simple list, not making any statement on whether the paper makes a useful contribution; for that purpose it doesn’t actually matter if the paper has some obvious flaw to it. If it said 1+1=3 and managed to get published someplace, it’s perfectly your prerogative to include it.
By the way, even papers that turn out to be flawed in some way can still be useful contributions. That’s the nature of science – things get refined over time. I’ll put the original Lindzen iris paper in that hat – a perfectly plausible mechanism, when it was proposed.
In order to make a more useful contribution, you might write an actual literature review, instead of a simple list. In such a review, you could also describe the substance of the comments and replies; as it is, counting replies just looks like padding the list.
Misrepresented? Including something by Shindell just because it says solar activity can influence the climate? In that case, the entire IPCC report is a sceptic work, too. We all know the sun can influence the climate; the question is, to what extent has it recently done so? Have you addressed why the ice age lag papers are included? Given how that’s mainstream science, I don’t see how you can claim it as being sceptic.
Oh well. It’s your work. You can make it as informative (or not) as you wish.
Phil Clarke,
Thanks so much for posting Mr RealClimate’s segment of that debate. As I’ve pointed out more than once here, Gavin Schmidt went into that debate a heavy favorite, and he came out of it the loser:
That’s a huge turnaround. And that debate was 2 1/2 years ago. Gavin Schmidt has run away from any more neutral, moderated debates ever since. [And he preposterously blamed his loss on the fact that he’s short! You could look it up in the WUWT archives.]
Picking the segment showing the loser of the debate was pretty lame, you gotta admit [well, you don’t have to admit it. It was still lame.] The Crichton segment just prior to it got 300% more views.
Turning around an audience that voted 2 – 1 in the alarmists’ favor — based only on the facts presented — is the same reason that the general public is starting to see that CO2=CAGW is a pig in a poke. And they’re starting to not buy it.
Thanx for the reminder of that great debate! Made my day.
Michael R (17:06:49) :
“…simply that the “Scientists” on the site come across so completely arrogant that I no longer have any faith in what they say – even if what they say is true.”
You and a lot of other people, Michael. There is a tale told of the missionary among the aborigines, who spoke to them of Heaven where people strummed harps and sang all day, and of the eternal hellfire and damnation that awaited them if they shunned The Lord. One native spoke to the man and asked, “Are you going to heaven”? “Oh, yes,” replied the missionary. “I expect to embrace St. Peter personally at the Pearly Gates.” “Then,” replied the native, “I think I will go to Hell.”
I will say, though, at RCS, except for a couple of minor lapses, I have never felt particularly put off by Gavin Schmidt. He seems sincerely devoted to spreading his gospel. Or seemed, at any rate. I haven’t visited for a long while.
“Sorry, but articles about “Claim of Largest Flood on Record Proves False” has nothing to do with the reality of AGW.”
It has everything to do with the environmental effects of AGW, which is claimed that floods will get worse.
“You have distorted the work of Caillon et al, of Bond et al, Monnin et al, etc, etc, etc on the ice core record, as anyone can see if they simply read them.”
Nothing is distorted, this statement supports skepticism,
“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
I made no claims about the authors personal position on AGW, only that this finding from that paper supports skepticism.
“You have misrepresented some of the work by Camp and Tung on solar influences. ”
These support skepticism,
Camp and Tung,
“By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.”
“The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC (solar cycle)”
“You seem to think that a paper on anything, such as a glacier recession being due to precipitation rather than temperature, is a “skeptical view.””
Yes, disputing the alarmism over Kilimanjaro supports skepticism.
“You have misrepresented papers by Mayewski, Shindell, Winter, etc.
These support skepticism,
Mayewski,
“We show that increased (decreased) solar irradiance is associated with increased (decreased) zonal wind strength near the edge of the Antarctic polar vortex. The association is particularly strong in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and as such may contribute to understanding climate forcing that controls drought in Australia and other Southern Hemisphere climate events. We also include evidence suggestive of solar forcing of atmospheric circulation near the edge of the Arctic polar vortex based on ice-core records from Mount Logan, Yukon Territory, Canada, and both central and south Greenland as enticement for future investigations. Our identification of solar forcing of the polar atmosphere and its impact on lower latitudes offers a mechanism for better understanding modern climate variability and potentially the initiation of abrupt climate-change events that operate on decadal and faster scales.”
Shindell,
“The model reproduces many observed 11-year oscillations, including the relatively long record of geopotential height variations; hence, it implies that these oscillations are likely driven, at least in part, by solar variability.”
Winter,
“We determined that SSTs from the LIA intervals are nearly 2–3°C cooler than present.”
This clearly acknowledges the presence of a LIA.
“You’ve misrepresented the Tsonis paper,
No I didn’t, it represents an alternative hypothesis for the climate shift of the ’70s that does not include greenhouse gases.
“Other resources such as “Energy and Environment” are not acceptable by general academic standards,”
According to who? You? Please.
I am well aware alarmists like you want the page removed so they can pretend no papers exist supporting skepticism, I am however sorry to disappoint you.
Poptech (16:21:55) :
“if temperatures are rising before CO2 then clearly CO2 is not responsible for the rise in temperature.”
I don’t think there is any real question that, in the historical record, temperatures have driven CO2 levels. But, the model equations governing the dynamics are bivalent: you can force temperature and get higher CO2, and you can force CO2 and get higher temperature. I’m not saying that is the case for 20th century warming, just that, this argument carries no weight with the AGW crowd, because the models tell them there is no contradiction.
The value I see in recognizing that CO2 has risen naturally in the past due to temperature forcing is that it provides an alternative explanation for the rise in CO2 concentration we have seen recently.
And, of course, it confirms that historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is not evidence of manmade global warming.
Poptech,
Selective quoting is also a sign of dishonesty. I’m done responding to you. You are only confusing people on this blog, not anyone in the scientific community. It’s quite obvious that you have only microscoped these papers to look for a quote which is dressed up to support your argument (when in fact none of them do) without actually understanding the subject behind it. And you know exactly what you are doing.
That’s it! I’m taking my ball and I’m going home.
chriscolose (19:25:49) :
Selectively quoting? Isn’t all quoting selective? I quoted straight from the abstracts of the papers which are supposed to be a summary of their research and conclusions.
You are confusing the authors of some of these papers personal views with the conclusions I draw from the research in these papers.
What is obvious is you attempted to make sweeping generalizations of papers based on known non-skeptical scientist’s personal opinions not thinking I read the papers before compiling them.
carrot eater (17:53:04) :
“One would have to look at the entire context of the topic, read/understand the other literature in that field, and make a judgment.”
Which would include reading this literature (which obviously doesn’t exist). I encourage people to make their own judgment but you seem to have a problem with this and want people to have you approve their judgment based on your subjective opinion.
“for that purpose it doesn’t actually matter if the paper has some obvious flaw to it. If it said 1+1=3 and managed to get published someplace, it’s perfectly your prerogative to include it.”
Any paper that says 1+1=3 would fail the peer-review process because that is what the process is for – to catch errors like this. The process is not about preventing publication of alternative theories (at least it is not supposed to be).
“…as it is, counting replies just looks like padding the list”
Did you not read the comments or the original post either? REPLIES ARE NOT COUNTED! There are many more listings than the 450 papers.
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
Smokey: “But skepticism is what is missing from the climate alarmists…”
I don’t agree. If you check out a website such as Real Climate, you will see lengthy and fruitful discussions of all manner of climate topics, where various uncertainties are discussed and the scientists and other participants wrestle with the science of climate. There’s certainly no complacent or easy acceptance of the status quo.
And interestingly, as I have pointed out previously, the list that heads this thread was initially greeted with applause by people who were praising it as a resource long before they can have critiqued and analysed the contents.
Invariant: “I cannot say that the deviation between theory and experiment is anywhere near negligible for the climate models; they have failed over and over again to predict the future….”
I don’t know much about climate models, but as I understand it, the intention is not so much to predict the future as to calculate scenarios based on various inputs. So in that sense they are learning as well as “predictive” devices.
On scepticism as an attitude or mental orientation, I doubt that many people are consistently sceptical, rather to new and unfamiliar information, and especially to the sort of information offered by those who do not share our worldview.
That’s just human nature, and it’s fortunate that in free societies there are people with different worldviews, who can act as a check on each other. Much as has happened on this thread.
Phil Clarke (14:38:06) :
You say there’s no science in this blog?
You haven’t seen data that shows the earth is cooling?
You haven’t seen data that shows it was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now?
You haven’t seen any data that shows it’s been warmer at other times in earths history than it is now?
Did you know you’re a troll?
Poptech (21:34:26) :
I wonder how many times I will have to repeat the same thing?
Ad infinitum.
As you can see the trolls thought they could distract people with ‘peer-review’. They are having trouble coping with the idea that there are are 100’s of peer-reviewed works that put serious doubts on all the aspects of AGW.
They aren’t going to listen to rational argument. They are going to stay on the troll merry-go-round. Get ready for them repeat themselves ad infinitum.
p.s. if you start showing them they don’t have a ‘consensus among scientists’ either you’ll see them get back on the merry-go-round—that merry-go-round is all they’ve got. 😉
Phil Clarke (00:21:14) :
Then there is the small matter of internal consistency. For example some of these papers argue that the proxy record is unreliable; others rely on the proxy record to demonstrate a historical sun-climate connection.
Is this the best you could come up with??
Ya, it probably is.
One time I was walking down the street. A thing said ‘no crossing’. Then I saw another place that said ‘cross walk’. I thought you weren’t supposed to cross the street! Go figure that one out!! Can you?
Man, the trolls really came out for this thread!
Poptech
Here is the link from the Danish National Space Center
To adopt your tactic…
Not a published response(excuse noted). Silly game, this.
Regarding (7) if you have a paper link to it.
Huh? The paper is specifically referred to in the article. Notes for Journalists:
The article, “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth,” appears in Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003, page 256.
Here is a free access version.
Smokey (15:40): Realclimate censors non-alarmist points of view for the same reason that Gavin Schmidt tucks his tail between his porky legs and runs off yelping whenever he’s challenged to a debate by a prominent skeptic
The same Smokey (18:05) Thanks so much for posting Mr RealClimate’s segment of that debate
Futile. Bye for now.
Micael R
I have written four articles on the subject. One of them sums up the considerable politics of AGW-the main driver. The other three relate to actual real world observations that examine climate change from a historic perspective. Hope you find them interesting.
Article: Politics of climate change
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
Article: reliability of temperature records (leads to my new web site)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability/
Article: Historic instrument readings demonstrate climatic variability
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/invisible-elephants/
Article; An examination of the great Arctic melting of 1815-1860
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
7. Mann’s paper of course references the fraudulent “Hockey Stick” (MBH98), which the whole section in the list here refutes. But for a paper directly referencing that specific one,
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)
– Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Then of course let me know if you want to continue this into a debate on the Mannian smoothing method?
FYI I can confirm RC censors comments as mine have been in the past.
Phil Clarke (00:28:13)
7. His paper of course references MBH98 which is refuted in the hockey stick section above but for a direct reference,
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)
– Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
FYI I can confirm that RC censors comments as it happened to me.
Phil
Lamb is quoted in the free access link you provided, this is what he said in the preface to one of his last books;
‘The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us.
It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.
Hubert Lamb, Holt, Norfolk December 1994 (1913-1997)”
Michael Mann no doubt has many attributes but having a knowledge of real-as opposed to modelled-history is not one of them.
tonyB
Poptech,
You have my admiration for putting up with the scurrilous attacks on your compilation by a handful of alarmists. Most of us appreciate having more information made available in one place. It is the censorship prone alarmists who are going ballistic. They want only their version of reality to be seen by the masses. If they could, they would completely censor this article and most of the comments.
It is clear is that the current climate is completely normal. It is well within its historical parameters; nothing unusual is occurring. In fact, compared to the past few thousand years, today’s climate is very benign [although a degree or two more warmth would benefit humanity]. It is only Al Gore’s wild-eyed followers who are still trying to convince people that the climate is going off a cliff. It is not. The climate is entirely normal.
To make an informed decision, people need all the information they can get, not just the one-sided information being spoon-fed to them by organizations like the UN’s IPCC, and by alarmist blogs that routinely censor comments that do not tow the Party line.
Hansen, Gore, Pachauri and the rest have cried “Wolf!” for far too long. But there is no wolf at the door. And there never was. Their shrieks about runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are motivated by a political agenda, fed by enormous amounts of grant money being funneled into the pockets of those blaming a harmless and very minor trace gas — 97% of which is emitted naturally by the planet — on humans, and repeatedly insinuating that climate doom is just around the corner.
Of course, they propose their cure: $Trillions in new taxes, to be paid almost entirely by Western taxpayers, and administered by an opaque, self serving and corrupt organization positioning itself to govern the world. That ‘cure’ is far worse than the putative disease, which exists only in the minds of the uninformed and those pushing their unstated agenda.
The carrot being used rewards numerous grant applicants who have received financial compensation in return for making statements and writing papers predicting climate catastrophe. The stick is that many scientists, even state meteorologists, have been hounded out of their jobs for simply expressing their considered view that a crisis is not at at hand. James Hansen and others of his ilk have preposterously called for the imprisoning of those who don’t agree with him. That certainly has the effect of silencing any difference of opinion, and it is the reason that the preponderance of scientists publicly disagreeing with the AGW hypothesis are those safely retired, who can speak frankly.
Thanks again for providing information that will never be seen on climate alarmist blogs. Hang in there. And Illegitimi non carborundum.
Michael R (17:06:49) :
I am just beginning an Environmental Science Degree and have been interested in finding information about AGW and how much of the science is fact.
Michael, I would suggest that you concentrate on learning the science behind GHG as first priority before getting distracted and disheartened by the myriad blogs. The best and most reliable sources of information are the standard textbooks from your library or the bookshop. The real science behind all this was established decades ago.
Smokey, I agree with much of what you are saying and you are welcome. You may find this worthwhile,
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Poptech,
That is an excellent paper that I’ve linked to several times on WUWT. Prof Lindzen shows how even one or two activists getting on a professional organization’s council or executive board, or even onto a committee, can hijack the entire organization’s direction. Lindzen gives real world examples. And we can see the results.
Other posters here have naively defended rigged surveys which claim that 97% of the membership believes in AGW — when they couldn’t get 97% of a group to agree that today is Wednesday.
Many, if not most professional organizations such as the APS and ACS have been hijacked like this. The membership is interested in their science, not in committee or executive board internal politics. Politically savvy individuals following the Alinsky template can easily make a stealth attack, once they have insinuated themselves into a decision making body, causing the organization to publish statements in the name of the membership which, if given the opportunity to formulate and fully debate such questions, the membership would not support.
The first thing that interested members of such organizations should do is request a copy of the current bylaws and meeting minutes — to which they are entitled — but which are almost never voluntarily provided. That will provide the basis for asking plenty of unanswered questions, such as who is on various committees, the organization’s finances including donations received and contributions made, who made the motion proposing the specific language of the position statement, etc.
Brendan H (22:37:22): Invariant: “I cannot say that the deviation between theory and experiment is anywhere near negligible for the climate models; they have failed over and over again to predict the future….”
I don’t know much about climate models, but as I understand it, the intention is not so much to predict the future as to calculate scenarios based on various inputs. So in that sense they are learning as well as “predictive” devices.
It is well known that they are trying to “redfine the rules” – that’s not OK. In science we have well defined rules how to do experiments, tune models to existing data and test models with future or unknown data. Please read Richard Feynman:
“There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”
If a model is unable to predict the future or it fails to have something else coming out right, in addition, it usually means that the model is falsified and needs to be retuned. Note that retuning “over and over again”, which presumably is what you mean by learning usually is a bad sign, and makes honest scientist sceptical – why should it not fail the next time?
On the other hand if the scenarios are not meant as predictive models with the ability to have “something else come out right” – then it is not science.
P Wilson:
Just because you don’t know the answer to something, it doesn’t mean that it still means explaining. What it means is that you need to go read and understand the explanations. I recommend a book like “Global Warming: The Hard Science” by L.D. Danny Harvey.
Bart says:
No. Climate models forced with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases also show periods of 10…or even 15…years where a least-squares trendline shows no increase in temperature: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf So, in fact, we not only understand what sort of effects can produce this, we can even replicate them in climate models quite well.
It is no more mysterious than the fact that here in Rochester, we can have week-long periods (or probably even longer) in the Fall where a least-squares trendline is up even though the seasonal cycle theory predicts cooling. This doesn’t lead people to conclude that “there is something out there which is powerful enough to stop the seasonal cycle, even potentially temporarily, in its tracks, and we don’t know what it is”.
No, it does not. Not any that makes any sense. First of all, if you look at the amount of warming vs CO2 change, you are talking about at most about 20 ppm for every 1 C rise in global temperature. That is not enough to explain the current rise of over 100ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Second of all, the very fact that there was a lag between the start of the temperature rise and the start of the CO2 rise in the record suggests that even this 20 ppm per 1 C rise is an effect that occurs over hundreds of years (corresponding pretty well to a timescale for ocean overturning). Third of all, this ignores a lot of evidence that shows conclusively that the current rise is due to our emissions of greenhouse gases.
To claim that the current rise in CO2 concentration is not due to us is frankly just silly…and is one of the reasons why some of us think “skeptic” is a very poor descriptor for people who are willing to believe such things.
Tom P (06:59:09) :
Really? All those feedback mechanisms are clearly, definitively, and quantitatively described in 20 year old textbooks?
Wonder how the IPCC missed that.
Michael R (17:06:49) : “I am just beginning an Environmental Science Degree and have been interested in finding information about AGW and how much of the science is fact…..”
Many thanks for posting that. You have expressed clearly and eloquently what I’m sure many people are thinking. I can recommend the Kirkby paper I reference below as a very interesting read and not too technical.
Poptech – great list, good work, but I haven’t been able to put time into checking it. Hopefully others are putting some time into that. However, I have seen some of the papers before, and I can confirm that Loehle and Kirkby do correctly belong in the list. I think there are heaps more papers that could be in the list. All the recent papers on ocean heat content for example. You have put in Loehle 2009, someone mentioned Cazenave, but there are also Levitus, Willis and Leuliette. You may have missed these because they don’t say in their abstract that they found non-warming of the ocean (Leuliette says there was warming) but the data inside their papers show non-warming or cooling from around 2003-2004. I understand that the models can only entertain non-warming for about 4 years, bar major volcanoes etc, so they should probably be in the list.
I remember seeing some time ago a 2003 paper on the Indian Ocean (I remember only the date!), and if that is R. H. Kripalani then I can verify that it is valid – otherwise there is one more paper somewhere for the list.
PS. For those that haven’t read it, the Kirkby paper is IMHO absolutely worth reading.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
The CLOUD experiment at CERN is now underway, as advised on WUWT by “Thomas” I think.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
Joel Shore (15:24:33) :
“So, in fact, we not only understand what sort of effects can produce this, we can even replicate them in climate models quite well.”
Then, why wasn’t it anticipated? Sure, you can kluge something together now. But, why should we have any confidence you have got it right now? If your science is always reactive, what good is it? What will you say if the temps keep going down?
How about sharing some of those “effects” with this audience?
“First of all, if you look at the amount of warming vs CO2 change, you are talking about at most about 20 ppm for every 1 C rise in global temperature.”
Based on your best estimates from proxy data, and theories of how those proxies retain information, and under an assumption that the data were collected and sorted without any biases or other mishandling. I’m not implying anything, just confirming the assumptions which go into the assertion.
“That is not enough to explain the current rise of over 100ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution.”
Which has been measured reliably and directly since about 50 years ago, in which time more than 2/3 of that rise was observed. Yes or no? Don’t explain to me that the earlier estimates are almost surely accurate. That’s not the information in which I am interested.
“Third of all, this ignores a lot of evidence that shows conclusively that the current rise is due to our emissions of greenhouse gases.”
I.e., based on a tenuous connection with 13C/12C ratios. Or, is there “a lot” of other evidence to which you could direct me?
“To claim that the current rise in CO2 concentration is not due to us is frankly just silly.”
As silly as the claim of imminent global cooling in the ’70’s? Yes or no, please, and not a harangue on how scientists weren’t serious about it then. I was there.
John M (15:53:06) :
“Really? All those feedback mechanisms are clearly, definitively, and quantitatively described in 20 year old textbooks?”
Actually, it was all here a little before that. Some assembly required.
Joel Shore (15:24:33) :
“So, in fact, we not only understand what sort of effects can produce this, we can even replicate them in climate models quite well.”
And, once more on that note, can you tell me which of those effects is happening right now, and how long it will last? If the science is as certain as you represent, I must assume that you know.
Invariant: “Note that retuning “over and over again”, which presumably is what you mean by learning usually is a bad sign, and makes honest scientist sceptical – why should it not fail the next time?”
The idea is to get a better match with the data. If that occurs – or if the data are discovered to be faulty – then you have a learning situation. It’s this process of “detection and attribution” that is a valuable aspect of climate modelling.
So the fact that climate models are not “predictive” in the usual sense of the term does not mean they are not scientific. Rather, they are a tool to help climate scientists better understand the way the atmosphere works, and that is surely what science is all about.
This article provides a useful overview of climate modelling: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Just an note I am continuing to update the list at my site with suggestions from posters here and emails I have received (they are much appreciated).
Some additions,
Recent cooling of the upper ocean (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 18, September 2006)
– John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, Gregory C. Johnson
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
– Stephen E. Schwartz
Anyone looking to email me paper suggestions can do so at populartechnology@gmail.com
It looks like the list is hitting RealClimate too…
“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. Including right here by RC regulars.
In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published.
It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus.
It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints.
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.
Don’t forget to support out gracious host by clicking on the donate button on the right. Anthony’s hard work is unfortunately not free and even $5 helps!
“The idea is to get a better match with the data. If that occurs – or if the data are discovered to be faulty – then you have a learning situation. It’s this process of “detection and attribution” that is a valuable aspect of climate modelling.”
Give me a break. The results are ALWAYS faulty, so they use this as an excuse to make “adjustments” perpetually all of which is irrelevant. Anytime a “correction” is made to a model all previous runs are automatically worthless. Climate modelers perpetually falsify their previous work with “updates”.
“So the fact that climate models are not “predictive” in the usual sense of the term does not mean they are not scientific.”
Yes it does, they are nothing more than a virtual reality theoretical excercise that are impossible to be empirically verified.
“Rather, they are a tool to help climate scientists better understand the way the atmosphere works, and that is surely what science is all about.”
This is a logical impossibility because for this to be true the virtual laboratory would have to already be exactly like the the real world. You cannot learn anything doing “experiments” in a laboratory that has nothing to do with the real world because your “experiments” will be inaccurate.
“This article provides a useful overview of climate modelling”
No it is not, that is Gavin showing why he got a degree in mathematics and not computer science.
A much better article,
Limitations of Climate Models as Predictors of Climate Change (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Brendan H (22:28:35) : So the fact that climate models are not “predictive” in the usual sense of the term does not mean they are not scientific. Rather, they are a tool to help climate scientists better understand the way the atmosphere works, and that is surely what science is all about.
I’m sure that Richard Feynman would cringe at this approach. What you state is not science – it is cargo cult science! How should we distnguish the good models from failty models?
Invariant (04:42:06) :
“How should we distnguish the good models from failty models?”
More importantly, and to the point, why should we be upending our entire industrial society on the basis of immature science?
On topic: “Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out”.
They should call up Joel. He can set them straight.
Let me try to explain what distinguishes good science from cargo cult science. What is the purpose with a theory, a hypothesis or a model? The answer is simple; the idea is to organize empirical findings in a structured way in order to be able to figure out how the nature works and to predict what will happen in a new or future situation without doing new experiments. If a model is unable to have such qualities, we
1. cannot conclude that the model is correct,
2. cannot conclude that the model is any better than any other model,
3. cannot use the model instead of doing expensive experiments, or
4. cannot use the model to predict what will happen in a new situation.
Let us consider a simple example. Take the first law of thermodynamics. This can be written in many ways, let us look at one of the simplest variants,
m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout
Here, T is the temperature, t is time, m is mass, cp is heat capacity, Qin is heat added and Qout is heat dissipated. The equation tells you that the temperature of a body will increase if we add heat (Qin > Qout) and that it will decrease if we remove heat (Qin < Qout). In addition it tells you that the time it takes to heat a body increase with the thermal mass of the body (m•cp).
Now, imagine that we did not know the above equation at all, the relationship between heat and temperature, nor why large bodies (with large thermal mass) react so slowly to heat transfer. In that situation we would very much like to apply the scientific method to reveal this relationship. This is the way we would do it:
1. Do experiments.
2. Develop a model and tune it to the known experiments.
3. Test the model with new and unknown experiments.
Obviously many models would be able to reproduce the known experiments by means of tuning. But when we test the model with new and unknown experiments, most models will fail, only the models that are correct (or approximately correct: remember measurement noise and all physical laws are approximations only) and in agreement with the law of physics do not fail.
What would happen if we did not use the scientific method as described above? Let us be even more specific and consider the heating of a house. Without knowledge of the first law of thermodynamics we could not predict the temperature in the house, for example how much it would increase if we added or removed a certain amount of heat. In this case many scientists from many different disciplines would fight and disagree what would be the best model for the temperature of the house. Which model should we use? The most popular model? The most serious model? The model developed by the most distinguished scientists?
Using the scientific method the answer is simple! Select the model that is able to predict new or unknown experiments, that is the only way to find a model that can have some practical value for mankind. The reason is that a good model contains more information than the experiments it is based on; it has like Richard Feynman states “something else that comes out right, in addition”. Thus, when we have eliminated all the other possible models that fail to predict the temperature in the house; we end up with the only useful alternative, namely the first law of thermodynamics.
If you seriously mean that we should stop eliminating the models that fail, it is obvious that you will not be able to select the right model that would be useful to predict the future temperature in the house when heat transfer is being changed. It is not possible to understand nature without this sort of testing. An experiment is only a simple snapshot of nature, and the underlying governing equations of nature contain so much more than a single experiment that they can be used to predict the outcome of many other experiments as well.
A climate model without predictive power is cargo cult science. It is not useful for us, and we cannot know whether it is any better than other models that also fail. It would be the equivalent of using an erroneous equation for the temperature in the house and argue that we should not pay attention to the fact that it is not able to predict the temperature in the house, because we learn so much about the thermodynamics of the house by using the equation. That is utter nonsense and true cargo cult science!
Poptech (23:51:40) : Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007) Stephen E. Schwartz
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecd.bnl.gov%2Fsteve%2Fpubs%2FHeatCapacity.pdf
Thanks! That’s a very nice paper! Cool to see that the first law of thermodynamics actually can be used in practice to calculate the relaxation time constant. I am wondering if ~5 years is sufficiently long? Sure there are obviusly many time constants, but the most predominant may be 5 years.
Invariant (14:41:03) :
That does look like an interesting paper. My thanks, also.
It looks like the list is hitting RealClimate too…
RealClimate, Pshaw! The uber-list made Denial Depot!
Never read papers in context of other papers. This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. Find some nice arguments to bash warmists with but for heavens sake don’t analyze the arguments in context of other papers.
Why you say? Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:
* Global temperature has risen naturally
* Global temperature hasn’t risen
* Global temperature doesn’t exist
* The greenhouse effect is saturated
* The greenhouse effect doesn’t exist
They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won’t merge into one another in a baffling contradiction.
Not to mention:
* Temperatures will not rise as projected by the IPCC.
* If they do, it won’t be so bad as they say
Michael Ashley
Yesterday I contacted EBSCO to suggest that they examine the peer-reviewed status of E&E, and pointed them to this website.
I just had an email from EBSCO saying that their Publishing Editorial Department agrees that E&E is not peer-reviewed, and will be changing its designation accordingly.
It will take 3-4 weeks for this change to be visible on their database, due to the sequencing of their periodic database rebuilds.
Source: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/#comment-6029
That’ll be rather fewer ‘peer-reviewed’ papers, then.
I will make sure both editors of the Journal contact EBSCO to correct any misinformation that was forwarded to them. E&E is clearly peer-reviewed as they list “Refereed Papers”.
Thank you for confirming how dangerous this list is to the alarmists.
Well, Phil, you have introduced me to a new blog I had never seen before. Interesting, er, repartee. I can’t help feeling like I walked in on a friend’s teenage kid doing something unseemly.
Congrats on your new vocation as a censor. I’m sure it will be every bit as rewarding to you as it has been to people you no doubt admire.
Meanwhile, the temps just keep going down…
Poptech (18:41:42) :
I will make sure both editors of the Journal contact EBSCO to correct any misinformation that was forwarded to them. E&E is clearly peer-reviewed as they list “Refereed Papers”.
Thank you for confirming how dangerous this list is to the alarmists.
Pathetic. Even clearing up incorrect information in a misleading list is used as confirmation of the Denial Religion.
Reverse you argument to see how dumb it is.
If a Denial acolyte points out an error on a AGW blog, does this also confirm that it’s a dangerous blog to denialists?
Both E&E editors and EBSCO have been contacted.
No error has been pointed out, what has happened is alarmists are doing everything they can to prevent skeptical scientists from publishing in the peer-reviewed literature (as confirmed by the hacked emails). The fact that an alarmist scientist would attempt to get a peer-reviewed journal removed from an index is simply more evidence of the fear they have towards the public obtaining this information. The coordinated efforts shown here (supported by Fenton Communications) and the pathetic attempts to attack the list will all fail.
Has this issue devolved into a; “My consensus can whip your consensus” argument?Only if you either can’t read, can’t be bothered, and are a functional idiot in science, math, statistics, the basics of computer simulation, and common sense.
Otherwise, yes, it has devolved, for the “reality show” crowd.
I was getting a bit overwhelmed by the comments, but still felt I needed to say this, as no one else seems to be doing so.
The facts of the matter are that the very disturbing part about this whole global warming thing is that there were people trying to make government policy out of half baked research, and hiding the fact.
This list wasn’t meant to be definative, just open up people’s eyes to the fact that there are varying viewpoints out there that are important for policy makers to consider.
I believe that is the fundamental point here.
The rest is superflous. If you really want to you can look up peer reviewed studies to your hearts content all over the internet.
The government officials and NATO I’m sure knew this, and have had copies of other opinions sent to them, and they still stuck to their official “dogma” without considering the alternatives.
That is exactly how countries and people get into trouble. That mentality spells bad news for anyone, but especially people under the thumb of rulers and policy makers who obviously care for no one but their own agenda.
Feel free to visit my blog, where I have a link to a documentary about Finnish scientists who’s research was deliberatly misused to serve the “acceptable” theory.
I don’t know if this is already known about Chris Landsea:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
“I don’t know if this is already known about Chris Landsea:”
Yes that is well known, it is from 2005 and has nothing to do with this subject. This is about skeptical peer-reviewed papers.
Good news I am up to 500 papers now!
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
Have any of these papers been cited in any IPCC report?
New paper,
Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008 (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 102-109, 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany
1. CO2 captures infra-red radiation that leaves Earth for space and re-emits it in a random direction. Some of it is sent back to Earth and warms it.
2. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm in year 1800 to 380ppm today. So Earth is warmer.
ALL climate scientists agree with the above. Climate Change denyers and skeptics must explain why 1 & 2 above does NOT cause Earth to warm.
Sometime before year 2100 the fossil fuel will run out and then everyone will need a new energy source. Should we wait for someone else to develop it or should we be in this multi-trillion dollar business at the start?
Eddie Crowley – I can’t speak for everyone here, but I think the most generally accepted position is :
1. Agree.
2. Agree.
1&2 do cause Earth to warm, but nothing like as much as claimed by the IPCC, and certainly not at a dangerous level.
Fossil fuel running out is a completely separate matter, and should be addressed on its own merits. If there is a benefit from developing new energy sources now, then let’s do it – and we don’t need to try to justify it with bogus AGW “science”.
Wrong science can point us in the wrong direction – for example, it could make us waste huge amounts of valuable energy on carbon sequestration.
Answering Ed Crowley:
1. CO2 captures a small portion of infrared radiation. In the only three effective bands of the IR over which CO2 is even “visible” (to IR), water vapor completely dominates one (i.e., will retain all the IR heat possible and partially dominates another, leaving CO2’s capacity further diminished to add to warming. Even then, because there already is sufficient atmospheric CO2 to interact with the IR that “sees” it in the few small bands remaining, little additional warming is even possible. This is why even the IPCC doesn’t claim more than a 1°C increase in heat retention from CO2. The IPCC claims more than 3x additional heat retention will result from the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere that the slight warming from additional CO2 will bring.
2. The atmospheric CO2 increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm provided very little additional atmospheric heat: http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/logco2-R2.jpg It is important to recognize that annually about 150 gigatonnes of CO2 are emitted by warm oceans and plant decay. Fossil fuel burning adds about 5% more. Annually, terrestrial plant growth and cold ocean absorption take out about 151 gigatonnes. What balance may carry over is affected by other sources of emission and absoprtion of CO2 as well as CO2 lost to space through the atmosphere. The vast consensus of studies performed over the past 55 years show that atmospheric CO2 has a life expectancy of 5 years in the atmosphere, plus or minus 2 years.
The notion that more CO2 in atmosphere => warming climate is simplistic and not deserving of serious belief. Yes, more CO2 will have some, possibly measurable, impact on atmospheric heat. But the suggestion that the very modest amount of fossil fuel CO2 produced by human activity is sufficient to cause significant climate change is simply implausible and reveals either a motivation to deceive or a lack of sufficient scientific understanding.
The late French climatologist, Dr. Marcel Leroux, in his “Global Warming, Myth or Reality” (2005) investigate primary drivers of climate change and found greenhouse gases ran a distant fourth to other natural forces.
The IPCC unwittingly supports climate realists’ claims that the AGW theory is pseudo-science at its worst. The IPCC (correctly) states that greenhouse gas warming will produce a pronounced (strong) warming “signature” in the tropical (+/- 30° latitude) mid-troposphere (8 km – 12 km). However, every effort to measure that warming signature (satellites, radiosonde measurements) found not even the slightest warming! This is but one of the very many AGW theory foundations that has been shown nonexistent by real world data and sound scientific research (not model-derived consensus).
Regarding the loss of fossil fuels, there are sufficient coal and oil reserves to last at least another 100 years, possibly 200 years. It is irrational to believe that at some time in the future when fossil fuel supplies actually are being reduced to a point where the cost of the fuels rises (not from speculators, but from real supply/demand forces), then the technologies developed by private entrepreneurs will emerge to begin an orderly, cost-effective transition. To begin that transition prematurely by government edict would be an enormously costly mistake, particularly when we all know government solutions are generally produce the worst and least cost effective results.
In the previous post, I meant to write in the last paragraph:
It is irrational to believe that at some time in the future when fossil fuel supplies actually are being reduced to a point where the cost of the fuels rises (not from speculators, but from real supply/demand forces), that technologies developed by private entrepreneurs will not emerge to begin an orderly, cost-effective transition from fossil fuels.
Apologies for getting lost in what turned out to be a sentence far too lengthy and complex! An option to review comments before posting would help eliminate such errors (but even reviews aren’t foolproof!).
Have any of these papers been cited in any IPCC report? 9 brb
Oszukac, yes some,
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Among various others.
The current list is up to 800+ papers,
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm