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

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!).

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.

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.

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

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

Yes that is well known, it is from 2005 and has nothing to do with this subject. This is about skeptical peer-reviewed papers.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

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.

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.

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?