Peer Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACCAGW AlarmismA tour de force list of scientific papers. Robert M. Carter, Ph. D. Environmental ScientistWow, the list is pretty impressive. Its Oreskes done right. Lubo Motl, Ph. D. Theoretical PhysicistI really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list. Willie Soon, Ph. D. Astrophysicist and GeoscientistAn excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW. Emil A. Ryrvik, Ph. D. Senior Research Scientist. Thanks to the pop tech team. Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics HandbookI do confess a degree of fascination with Poptechs list. John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science This resource has been cited over 1. Before accepting any criticisms of this list, please read the detailed rebuttals. Table of Contents Preface. Disclaimer. Counting Method. Criteria for Inclusion. Criteria for Removal. Formatting. Purpose. Rebuttals to Criticisms. Highlights. General. Antarctica. Arctic. Climate Sensitivity. Clouds. Coral Reefs. Deaths. Disease. Ecological. Glaciers. Greenland. For over 65 years those in power have waged covert weather warfare against unsuspecting and innocent populations all over the planet. The ongoing covert climate. Insights into elevationdependent warming in the Tibetan PlateauHimalayas from CMIP5 model simulations. Red Flag Warnings In Effect. Fire weather conditions will worsen across northern California throughout the day as a front passes through, bringing lower. Preface The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change ACC, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW or Alarmism e. Catastrophic. Gulf Stream. Hockey Stick. Medieval Warm Period. Roman Warm Period. Ocean Acidification. Permafrost. Polar Bears. Atmosphere Weather And Climate Barry Pdf File' title='Atmosphere Weather And Climate Barry Pdf File' />Sea Level. Species Extinctions. Natural Disasters. Droughts, Floods. Earthquakes. Heat Waves. Hurricanes. Storms. Tornadoes. Wildfires. Satellite Temperatures. Urban Heat Island. 163 06 Aggiornato Pdf Files there. Weather Stations. Year Climate Cycle. CO2 Lags Temperature. Cosmic Rays. Lunar. Solar. An Inconvenient Truth. Armed Conflict. Climategate. IPCCKyoto Protocol. Socio Economic. Stern Review. Historic This section is not counted. Journal Citation List. Journal Notes. Definitions. Impact Factor. Scientist Credentials. Sources. Updates. Acknowledgements. Citations. Tip Use CtrlF PC or CommandF Mac to search this page. Preface The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change ACC, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW or Alarmism e. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming CAGW or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming DAGW. Please read the following introductory notes for more detailed information. Alarmism defined, concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio economic effect of ACCAGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic. Disclaimer Even though the most prolific authors on the list are skeptics, 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. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr. Alarmism. Some papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary. This is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics. Lists of skeptical scientists can be found here Counting Method Only peer reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk so they are not confused with the counted papers. Supplemental papers include but are not limited to Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Discussions, Erratum, Rebuttals, Rejoinders, Replies, Responses, Supplemental Material, Updates 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 1. 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 scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACCAGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso. Ph. D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U. S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels. Ph. D. Climatology. 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. Just like other popular scientific bibliographic resources e. Scopus, Web of Science, no paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction. Any known published correction will be included on the list following the original paper to show that these did not affect the authors original conclusions. 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 bibliographic resource for peer reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACCAGW or Alarmism 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. Secretary of State and Failed U. S. Presidential Candidate 2. 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 1. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that were causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 9. 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 2. I cant tell you how many times Ive been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewedpublished 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. Its one thing to engage and refute. But its 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 CAWUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line. John H., Comment at Real. Climate. org. Rebuttals to Criticisms. I. This first section includes detailed rebuttals to commonly posted links attacking the list. II. This second section includes general rebuttals to common criticisms Criticism 9. Rebuttal No 9. 7 study exists that shows 4. AGW. The largest study to date, Cook et al. AGW and found 7. 93. AGW. While only 6. AGW as 5. 0 humans are the primary cause. A later analysis by Legates et al. Cook et al. s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 9. The second part of Cook et al. All the other 9. Doran Zimmerman 2. Anderegg et al. 2. Oreskes 2. 00. 4 have been refuted by peer review. Criticism Every major scientific organization disagrees with the list. Rebuttal This is misleading since only a very small minority of scientists have actually expressed a position on AGW from these organizations. Policy statements release by a handful of council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than these few scientists.