To GOP members forbidden by GOP 'leader' Boehner to discuss climate science and told to 'change the subject to jobs,' here's a list of 1350 peer reviewed papers disputing the notion of man-caused global warming, categorized, easy to use

Over 325 unique lead authors and over 1500 total authors on the list. In 2012 $1 billion a day was "invested" in the notion of "global warming." 6/27/13, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode

2/12/14, "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm," PopularTechnology.net

"The list has been cited by Scientists (1, 2) and Professors (3).

Do not accept any criticisms of this list without first reading the detailed rebuttals."...

------------------------------------------------------ 

Quotes from John Kerry and Al Gore:
.

""You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004)

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."

- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2000)...
.

=====================
.

Table of Contents:

Preface
Disclaimer
Counting Method
Criteria for Inclusion
Criteria for Removal
Formatting
Purpose
--------------------------------------
Rebuttals to Criticisms
--------------------------------------
Highlights
--------------------------------------
General
Climate Sensitivity
Antarctica
Arctic
Clouds
Coral Reefs
Deaths
Disease
Ecological
Glaciers
Greenland
Gulf Stream
Hockey Stick
Medieval Warm Period
Roman Warm Period
Ocean Acidification
Permafrost
Polar Bears
Sea Level
Species Extinctions
--------------------------------------
Natural Disasters
Droughts, Floods
Earthquakes
Heat Waves
Hurricanes
Storms
Tornadoes
Wildfires
--------------------------------------
Satellite Temperatures
Urban Heat Island
Weather Stations
--------------------------------------
1,500-Year Climate Cycle
CO2 Lags Temperature
Cosmic Rays
Lunar
Solar
--------------------------------------
An Inconvenient Truth
Armed Conflict
Climategate
IPCC
Kyoto Protocol
Socio-Economic
Stern Review
--------------------------------------
Historic
--------------------------------------
Journal Citation List
Journal Notes
Definitions
Impact Factor
Scientist Credentials
Sources
Updates
--------------------------------------
.
Acknowledgements
Citations

Tip: Use Ctrl+F (PC) or Command+F (Mac) to search this page.

 

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)].
ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.

Counting Method: Only Peer-Reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers; * Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers.

This is a dynamic list that is routinely updated. When a significant new number of peer-reviewed papers is added the list title will be updated with the new larger number. The list intentionally includes an additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates. Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated.

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction.

Formatting: All papers are cited as: "Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors". All Supplemental papers are preceded by an asterisk and italicized; * Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers. Ordering of the papers is chronological per category.

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;...
.

Rebuttals to Criticisms:

> 2,258 Meaningless Search Results
> Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
> Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
> AGW Observer: Rebuttal to "Anti-AGW papers debunked"
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part I: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part II: Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
> Carbon Brief: Rebuttal to "Part III: Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics" Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers"
> DeSmogBlog: Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"
> Greenfyre: Rebuttal to "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"
> Roger Pielke Jr.: Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"
> Skeptical Science: Rebuttal to "Meet the Denominator"
> Rebuttal to 7 Spammed Lies
> Rebuttal to "Does size matter?"
> Rebuttal to Mothincarnate
> Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
> Rebuttal to PSU ENGR 408 Class Paper
> Rebuttals to Published Alarmist Papers
> Origin of the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed Paper List

Criticism: The list has been debunked.
Rebuttal: The list has never been debunked. All known criticisms of this list have been rebutted or a change made to correct the issue. The existence of a criticism does not make it true, as invalid criticisms of the list have been repeatedly shown to be based on lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. In most cases these long rebutted criticisms are now years old and have no relation to the current version of the list. Changes include; clarifications and corrections made to the list when necessary. All corrections made have been insignificant and have never affected the list count.

Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk (*) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.

Criticism: Papers on the list are Commentary or Editorials.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is a peer-reviewed research or review paper. Certain scholarly journals that do not focus on primary research such as, Trends in Parasitology include research-related 'Opinion' articles that are peer-reviewed. These scholarly works should not be confused with general commentary or editorial pieces that appear in magazines.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
.
Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is outdated.
Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 800 papers published since 2000 and over 1000 papers published since 1990 on the list.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a physical science paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a research paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are "research" papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Review papers under go the same peer-review process as research papers and are considered scientifically valid.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed because it is a "Letter".
Rebuttal: "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is hidden behind a paywall.
Rebuttal: Whether a full copy of a paper is made freely available is at the discretion of the journal's publisher. Any similar list would have the same limitations since archiving a paper without a publisher's permission would violate copyright law. Where a full copy of a paper was found online, a (PDF) link was added after a paper's name.

Criticism: All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.
Rebuttal: While there are thousands of climate related papers, only a small percentage of these even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: No paper is listed without first confirming the journal is peer-reviewed. With all journals that are challenged as to their peer-review status, further confirmation is done using bibliographic databases from EBSCO, Scopus and Thompson Reuters. This detailed information is provided in the Journal Notes following the list.

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The IPCC cited peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from over 350 other journals on the list.

Criticism: Author [Insert Name] is not a skeptic.
Rebuttal: It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that, "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."

Criticism: Most of the papers come from a small amount of authors.
Rebuttal: Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading. ISI Highly Cited Researchers such as Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen will naturally be well represented on the list. There are still over 325 unique lead authors and over 1500 total authors on the list.

Criticism: Many authors/scientists have demanded their papers be removed from the list.
Rebuttal: Only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and this paper was removed after it was determined that defending it's inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though he was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. "Please remove this article from your list of skeptics"). The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands.

Criticism: A Blog post, Wiki page or YouTube video debunks/refutes a peer-reviewed paper on the list.
Rebuttal: That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. The list includes any rebuttals to published comments following the original paper.

Criticism: Low climate sensitivity is not defined.
Rebuttal: The IPCC states that, "climate sensitivity is likely (66%) to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C." Thus, climate sensitivity estimates where the mean does not exceed 2°C (low end of the IPCC range) or the high end of the range does not exceed 3°C (the IPCC mean) are considered to support skeptical arguments for a low climate sensitivity.

Criticism: The list does not present a scientific argument.
Rebuttal: The list is a resource not a scientific argument. The purpose of the list is clearly stated - to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments."...
  

=======================
.

It's perfect: The climate "crisis" justifies stealing from US taxpayers in perpetuity:

"“If you really believe or accept that global warming is a legitimate, real, immediate threat, then "there's no amount of money you wouldn't pay to avoid it,” he said."...6/27/13, Mike McKenna, GOP consultant and House insider
Source, 6/27/13, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode  .

Ed. note: This Politico article uses the term "science" to refer to something doesn't exist. There's no scientific proof that human CO2, especially evil American CO2, is killing the planet. Even if CO2 had such power, China is by far the leader in global CO2 and is rapidly building new coal plants. US CO2 has plunged. US EPA science clearly states Obama rules to lower CO2 at US power plants will have no effect on CO2 emissions. 
.

================================ 
.

Scientist resigns from elite science society over its support of the global warming industry:
. 

8/10/2010,  "Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society," published by Global Warming Policy Foundation
 
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. 

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it."...

("Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)" (Sometime after his resignation from APS, Dr. Lewis passed away).







.