Reference: 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers

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

Reply To: Comments on Loehle, “correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies”

(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

* An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)

(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

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre

(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

Response to comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)

(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

Do Facts Matter Anymore?

(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

Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)

(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

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

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

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)

(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)

– Willie H. Soon

In defense of Milankovitch (PDF)

(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 24, December 2006)

– Gerard Roe

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (PDF)

(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

Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)

(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

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?

(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 4, February 2006)

– John R. Christy, W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends (PDF)

(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

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)

(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

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003) (PDF)

(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

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years

(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

On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback

(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

Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems (PDF)

(Technology, Volume 7S, pp. 189-213, 2000)

– Indur M. Goklany

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

(Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)

– Robert H. Essenhigh

Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)

(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April 2002)

– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

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. Chilingar

(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

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)

(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

Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations (PDF)

(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

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches

(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

“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions

(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

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources

(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.

Reply to comment by David E. Parker et al. on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends” (PDF)

(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D5, March 2009)

– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)

(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.

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

(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

Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea

(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

Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)

(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)

– Willie H. Soon

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (PDF)

(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

Radiative effect of cirrus with different optical properties over the tropics in MODIS and CERES observations (PDF)

(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.”

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka (PDF)

(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

Temperature-related mortality in France, a comparison between regions with different climates from the perspective of global warming

(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

Palaeoclimatic and archaeological evidence for a 200-yr recurrence of floods and droughts linking California, Mesoamerica and South America over the past 2000 years

(Holocene, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 763-778, 2003)

– Amdt Schimmelmann, Carina B. Lange, Betty J. Meggers

Glaciers:

Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates (PDF)

(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.

Recent glacier advances in Norway and New Zealand: A comparison of their glaciological and meteorological causes

(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)

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)

(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

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)

(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)

– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (PDF)

(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

Comments on “Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme”

(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.

Caribbean sea surface temperatures: Two‐to‐three degrees cooler than present during the Little Ice Age

(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

Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand

(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 14, pp. 1-4, July 2002)

– E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D’Arrigo

Evidence for a warmer period during the 12th and 13th centuries AD from chironomid assemblages in Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada

(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

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia

(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

Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers

(Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8, December 2008)

– Håkan Grudd

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America

(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:

Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm

(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:

Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? (PDF)

(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

Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)

(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

Sea Level:

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

Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on “Estimating future sea level changes from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner (2004)

(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

Reply to the comment of P.S. Kench et al. on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by N.A. Morner et al.

(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)

Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis, Environmental Stress and Migration Overseas: The Case of the Maldives and Sri Lanka (PDF)

(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

Compilation and Discussion of Trends in Severe Storms in the United States: Popular Perception v. Climate Reality

(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

Surges, atmospheric pressure and wind change and flooding probability on the Atlantic coast of France

(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.

Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin

(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:

Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification

(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

Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships (PDF)

(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Number 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997)

– Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

Reply to comments on “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships” (PDF)

(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

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate

(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002)

– Fangqun Yu

Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection (PDF)

(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

Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties

(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

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity

(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp.1037-1062, November 2004)

– F. Yu

Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays

(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

Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, and Their Imprints on Terrestrial Archives and Climate

(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

Cosmic Rays and Climate

(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, Numbers 5-6, November 2007)

– Jasper Kirkby

Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux

(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

Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880–1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection (PDF)

(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

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (PDF)

(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

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature

(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

The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection

(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

The link between the solar dynamo and climate – The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland

(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

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth’s climate? (PDF)

(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)

– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate

(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

The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers

(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

Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto

(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

Time to ditch Kyoto

(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

Calling the Carbon Bluff: Why Not Tie Carbon Taxes to Actual Levels of Warming? Both Skeptics and Alarmists Should Expect Their Wishes to Be Answered (PDF)

(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

Climate Policy : Quo Vadis?

(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

Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development (PDF)

(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

Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and their Implications for Adaptation and Mitigation (PDF)

(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

The Real Climate Change Morality Crisis: Climate change initiatives perpetuate poverty, disease and premature death

(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 Anti Wikipedia 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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
333 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
November 15, 2009 1:58 am

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.

tallbloke
November 15, 2009 2:01 am

Great resource, thanks!

John Edmondson
November 15, 2009 2:16 am

Don’t you just love the smell of evidence in the morning.
Thanks Andrew

November 15, 2009 2:17 am

Fantastic effort, looks like I’m out of a job, still I’ve got a gold plated pension.
James Hansen.

Vincent
November 15, 2009 2:28 am

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.

Bill Jamison
November 15, 2009 2:28 am

Uh, how about not including the entire list on the front page!!! Yikes…

Otter
November 15, 2009 2:39 am

Well, that was Short and to the point 😉

Patrick Davis
November 15, 2009 2:41 am

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!

Vincent
November 15, 2009 2:54 am

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.

artwest
November 15, 2009 3:24 am

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.

Ron de Haan
November 15, 2009 3:49 am

So much for the “consensus” and “the science is settled” mantra.

rbateman
November 15, 2009 3:53 am

That’s a load of papers.

Ron de Haan
November 15, 2009 3:54 am

APEC MEETING agrees, No Copenhagen Treaty.
Obama not happy.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/apec-meeting-agrees-no-copenhagen.html

Robinson
November 15, 2009 4:52 am

Wow. Thanks for this Anthony/Andrew. What a fantastic resource!

mcates
November 15, 2009 5:03 am

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.

November 15, 2009 5:30 am

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.

Curiousgeorge
November 15, 2009 5:31 am

Has this issue devolved into a; “My consensus can whip your consensus” argument?

Bruce Cobb
November 15, 2009 5:44 am

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).

sod
November 15, 2009 5:44 am

so where is the list that en green promised?

November 15, 2009 5:54 am

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.

Adam Grey
November 15, 2009 5:56 am

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.

JohnB
November 15, 2009 5:59 am

Thank you Andrew and WUWT for this very helpful list.
I am just diving in and may be some time.

Basil
Editor
November 15, 2009 6:01 am

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.”

November 15, 2009 6:12 am

Everyone is welcome.
As for Kerry notice he mentions the mythical “thousands of scientists” but only names John Holdren and Jim Hansen… telling.

socold
November 15, 2009 6:25 am

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.

jaypan
November 15, 2009 6:31 am

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.

November 15, 2009 6:32 am

“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.”

Pamela Gray
November 15, 2009 6:41 am

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.

Andrew
November 15, 2009 6:44 am

“Sauce for the goose” -Mr. Spock, et. al.
Andrew

Skeptic Tank
November 15, 2009 6:50 am

Absolutely terrific. Although it takes up a lot of the home page. Might I suggest you reference most of it to this page.

socold
November 15, 2009 6:55 am

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.

November 15, 2009 7:08 am

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.

Mr. Alex
November 15, 2009 7:11 am

Excellent!!

Mr Lynn
November 15, 2009 7:12 am

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

Brute
November 15, 2009 7:19 am

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.

Kate
November 15, 2009 7:21 am

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.

socold
November 15, 2009 7:42 am

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.

socold
November 15, 2009 7:50 am

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.

paullm
November 15, 2009 7:59 am

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!

paullm
November 15, 2009 8:00 am

Forgot…of course everyone will email/fax this list to their political reps – right?!

paullm
November 15, 2009 8:05 am

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.

Marcus
November 15, 2009 8:15 am

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?).

November 15, 2009 8:17 am

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.

Tom P
November 15, 2009 8:25 am

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?

Alvin
November 15, 2009 8:27 am

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?

November 15, 2009 8:28 am

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.

Bill Illis
November 15, 2009 8:31 am

Thanks very much Andrew.
People should bookmark this.

November 15, 2009 8:35 am

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”

hotrod
November 15, 2009 8:35 am

Mr Lynn (07:12:06) :
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

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

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
November 15, 2009 8:38 am

“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.

socold
November 15, 2009 8:40 am

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”

November 15, 2009 8:49 am

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.

Phil Clarke
November 15, 2009 8:52 am

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.

November 15, 2009 8:59 am

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.

Phil Clarke
November 15, 2009 9:00 am

Hmmmm (Part 2)….., if Replies and Comments are not included, why is the second entry a reply to a comment on the first entry?

Kevin Kilty
November 15, 2009 9:02 am

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.

November 15, 2009 9:14 am

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?

Jim Clarke
November 15, 2009 9:33 am

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?

mccall
November 15, 2009 9:35 am

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!

Not Amused
November 15, 2009 9:40 am

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….

November 15, 2009 9:53 am

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.

November 15, 2009 10:01 am

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

November 15, 2009 10:05 am

Wow, the list is pretty impressive – thanks to Andrew! It’s “Oreskes done right”. 😉

Chris Schoneveld
November 15, 2009 10:11 am

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/

Neven
November 15, 2009 10:12 am

Lubos, the list is extremely impressive. Until you dig deeper into it, that is.

Peter, Sweden
November 15, 2009 10:15 am

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!!!!

November 15, 2009 10:19 am

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.

socold
November 15, 2009 10:24 am

you mean like people who claim there is “no evidence” for manmade global warming must live outside reality?
I can agree with both cases.

Frank K.
November 15, 2009 10:28 am

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…

Neven
November 15, 2009 10:41 am

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?

Phil Clarke
November 15, 2009 10:51 am

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.

Tom P
November 15, 2009 10:53 am

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.

November 15, 2009 10:58 am

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.

Neven
November 15, 2009 11:03 am

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.

November 15, 2009 11:05 am

“Peer reviewed”, yes, but have they been “adjusted” yet???

Jeremy
November 15, 2009 11:15 am

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.

November 15, 2009 11:16 am

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.

Neven
November 15, 2009 11:22 am

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.

November 15, 2009 11:31 am

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.

sod
November 15, 2009 11:52 am

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

November 15, 2009 11:54 am

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! 🙂

Joel Shore
November 15, 2009 11:57 am

Jeremy:

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.

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.

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…

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.)

Joel Shore
November 15, 2009 12:00 pm

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.

Joel Shore
November 15, 2009 12:13 pm

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.
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.

November 15, 2009 12:18 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 12:20 pm

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?

Roger Knights
November 15, 2009 12:23 pm

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!

DR
November 15, 2009 12:23 pm

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?

Mike McMillan
November 15, 2009 12:25 pm

Great compilation !
More than a tip of the Hatlo hat to Andrew and Popular Technology. Great site that hits many of my anti-buttons.

Sandy
November 15, 2009 12:26 pm

“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.

DR
November 15, 2009 12:26 pm

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?

Gacooke
November 15, 2009 12:47 pm

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.

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 12:51 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 12:58 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 1:01 pm

Thanks again to WUWT for providing us with another fabulous resource. Terrific.

Paul Vaughan
November 15, 2009 1:05 pm

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.)

will
November 15, 2009 1:11 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 1:13 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 1:25 pm

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.

Neven
November 15, 2009 1:29 pm

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

Philipe
November 15, 2009 1:31 pm

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’)

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 1:34 pm

Is it certain that all 450 are peer-reviewed?

Dano
November 15, 2009 1:55 pm

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

November 15, 2009 2:10 pm

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

Dr A Burns
November 15, 2009 2:14 pm

“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 ?

November 15, 2009 2:16 pm

“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.

Neven
November 15, 2009 2:59 pm

[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]

Bart
November 15, 2009 3:10 pm

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.

Bart
November 15, 2009 3:12 pm

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.

Kevin Kilty
November 15, 2009 3:22 pm

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.

Gacooke
November 15, 2009 3:35 pm

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”.

Adam Soereg
November 15, 2009 3:44 pm

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.

Invariant
November 15, 2009 3:50 pm

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

Paul Vaughan
November 15, 2009 3:54 pm

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).

November 15, 2009 3:56 pm

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!.

Neven
November 15, 2009 4:23 pm

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?

November 15, 2009 4:34 pm

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.

November 15, 2009 4:58 pm

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.

Neven
November 15, 2009 5:27 pm

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.

Shurley Knot
November 15, 2009 6:19 pm

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.

ginckgo
November 15, 2009 6:41 pm

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…

Russell
November 15, 2009 7:08 pm

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

Squidly
November 15, 2009 7:24 pm

sod (11:52:13) :
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.

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!

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 7:30 pm

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.

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 7:36 pm

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.

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 7:44 pm

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.

Gene Nemetz
November 15, 2009 7:45 pm

ginckgo (18:41:07) :
I count 82 articles in “Energy & Environment”….
There are better ways to spend a Sunday.

savethesharks
November 15, 2009 7:54 pm

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]

savethesharks
November 15, 2009 7:55 pm

Correction: But it isn’t remotely the Scientific Method….in any shape, form, or fashion.

Squidly
November 15, 2009 8:33 pm

@ Neven:

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.

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?

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.

So you are saying that sacrificing a few thousand lives justified? The end justifies the means?

This ‘Pearl Harbor’ could be AGW, it could be Peak Oil,…

Both of which are “superstitions

Watts Up With That won’t be covering this news. Be it on purpose or not, WUWT is a propaganda outlet…

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!

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…

Again, your wealth of ignorance is astounding…

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

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

Squidly
November 15, 2009 10:17 pm

Neven (14:59:48) :

There is no such thing as a free market. Adam Smith has said as much: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices.” When the market is ‘free’ market players will sooner than later infiltrate the government and thus bend policy to create a monopoly that serves the players and not the public. By starting wars over dwindling resources for example. Young men are paying with their lives for Halliburton contracts.
It’s not about government vs private sector, for both entities have become one in the West. The dichotomy is only there to keep people divided and thus serve prolongation of the status quo. That’s why we have sites like WUWT. Only attacking one side of the so-called debate and promoting inaction. 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?

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.

Squidly
November 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Gacooke (15:35:18) :
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”.

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.

JP Miller
November 15, 2009 10:58 pm

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.

Brendan H
November 16, 2009 12:38 am

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.

Brendan H
November 16, 2009 12:41 am

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?

November 16, 2009 12:57 am

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.

Amabo
November 16, 2009 12:58 am

“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.

November 16, 2009 1:22 am

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

Fall of the Republic
November 16, 2009 2:34 am

[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]

Vincent
November 16, 2009 2:36 am

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.

Iren
November 16, 2009 3:04 am

“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.

Vincent
November 16, 2009 3:18 am

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.

hpx83
November 16, 2009 3:28 am

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

November 16, 2009 4:26 am

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.

Spector
November 16, 2009 4:30 am

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.

November 16, 2009 4:34 am

“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.

Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2009 4:40 am

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.

November 16, 2009 4:45 am

“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.

Dano
November 16, 2009 5:29 am

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

November 16, 2009 6:08 am

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.

me
November 16, 2009 6:30 am

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]

me
November 16, 2009 6:42 am


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

Dano
November 16, 2009 7:33 am

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

November 16, 2009 7:40 am

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

November 16, 2009 7:59 am

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.”

November 16, 2009 8:21 am

“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.

Neven
November 16, 2009 8:43 am

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

Vincent
November 16, 2009 10:19 am

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.

Oliver Ramsay
November 16, 2009 11:20 am

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”.

Invariant
November 16, 2009 11:31 am

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!

Joel Shore
November 16, 2009 11:56 am

Poptech:

The paper Schellnhuber co-authored clearly supports skepticism of climate models.

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

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 11:58 am

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.

November 16, 2009 12:01 pm

…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.

Doug
November 16, 2009 12:03 pm

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.

Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2009 12:04 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 12:11 pm

Phil Clarke (11:58:57),
If we were to remove the ad hominem comments from your post, we would be left with: “… …”.

Myron Mesecke
November 16, 2009 12:14 pm

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?

Dano
November 16, 2009 12:22 pm

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

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 12:28 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 12:33 pm

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

November 16, 2009 12:44 pm

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.

Vincent
November 16, 2009 12:49 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 12:59 pm

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

Dano
November 16, 2009 1:18 pm

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

socold
November 16, 2009 1:23 pm

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.

Bart
November 16, 2009 1:29 pm

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.

Bart
November 16, 2009 1:36 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 1:39 pm

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.

Editor
November 16, 2009 1:40 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 1:41 pm

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.

Dano
November 16, 2009 1:53 pm

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

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 2:20 pm

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?

Sandy
November 16, 2009 2:28 pm

Something about Dano’s post reminds me of lifting a rock and watching all the sqirmies run for cover.

November 16, 2009 2:28 pm

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

November 16, 2009 2:42 pm

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.

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 2:59 pm

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!

November 16, 2009 3:01 pm

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

ginckgo
November 16, 2009 3:11 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 3:27 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 3:34 pm

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.

November 16, 2009 3:36 pm

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.

Roger Knights
November 16, 2009 3:37 pm

Let’s call ourselves “climate change critics,” not “skeptics,” which implies a more even-handed approach than we take.

November 16, 2009 3:40 pm

…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.

Dano
November 16, 2009 3:42 pm

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

November 16, 2009 3:56 pm

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.

bob
November 16, 2009 4:20 pm

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.

Bart
November 16, 2009 4:27 pm

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.

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 4:50 pm

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 ….

Dano
November 16, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Phil Clarke
November 16, 2009 5:04 pm

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?

Joel Shore
November 16, 2009 5:22 pm

Adam Soereg says:

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 stratospher