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only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal.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;
“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. Senator 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)
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.”
– John H., Comment at RealClimate.org
But…..I thought tbe science was settled……
@Pete: Only for those who fail to understand facts instead of their slanted ideology. Just look at Tom’s comment just a few days ago. “Randy, do you mean that if CO2 levels are rapidly increasing and the measured temperature of the Earth is flat, then CO2 does not cause AGW?” He can not make the connection and still maintain his ideological affiliation. So, obviously, the relationship of the AGW curve and the CO2 curve are not facts to him.
Looks like Michael Mann and AGW is now under severe criticism! He believed his own press. http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
Sigh. There is no there there.
I lived through the terror of Nuclear Winter. We were all going to die because there would be no sunlight.
Did not happen.
I lived through the terror of the Club of Rome dire predictions about population growth.
Did not happen.
Now I am living through the anti-scientific AGW catastrophe, which shows what one can do if one cherry-picks and invents data.
Did you know? The data used for the first hockey stick has never been revealed. It can’t be checked; it is apparently permanently lost. 😉
But is there ever a ton of money available for AGW fanatics. It takes a lot of money to fabricate a falsehood, after all.
The fact tbat tbe AGW cultists ignored the data showing shrinkage of the polar caps on Mars and Pluto – clearly indicating either the Sun as the culprit behind increased temps on earth until 1998, or else a secret project by Halliburton to drive cars with internal combustion engines on these planets….shows the pseudoscience intrinsic to tbe AGW cult.
The dead silence on yet another disproven AGW talking point, that of the massive increase in tbe polar icecaps despite algore’s prediction of the melting/shrinkage of the caps continues to show the total absence of AGW reliability.
But they will keep telling us how stupid we deniers are…..and how the science is settled….