1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
"A tour de force list of scientific papers..."
- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist
"Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right."
- Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist
"I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list."
- Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist
"An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW."
- Emil A. Røyrvik, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist
"...it's a very useful resource. Thanks to the pop tech team."
- Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook
"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science
† This resource has been cited over 100 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.
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
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 * This section is not counted
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 Alarmism [e.g. 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 ACC/AGW, 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.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 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:
- 31,487 Scientists Reject AGW Alarmism
- 1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change'
- 1000+ International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
- 300+ Eminent Scientists Reject U.N. Climate Change Treaty
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.
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 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 scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against
ACC/AGW 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.g. 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 author's 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 ACC/AGW 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 (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
Rebuttals to Criticisms:
(1) This first section includes detailed rebuttals to commonly posted links attacking the list:
> 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"
> All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review
> Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
> Origin of the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed List
> Rebuttals to Published Alarmist Papers
> AGW Observer - Rebuttal to "Anti-AGW papers debunked"
> Carbon Brief - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
> Carbon Brief - Rebuttal to "9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
> Carbon Brief - Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
> Carbon Brief - Rebuttal to "Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics"
> 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"
> itsnotnova - Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
> itsnotnova - Rebuttal to 7 Spammed Lies
> James Powell - 2,258 Meaningless Search Results
> James Powell - 13,950 Meaningless Search Results
> Mothincarnate - Rebuttal to "4xx+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern"
> Pennsylvania State University - Rebuttal to PSU ENGR 408 Class Paper
> Roger Pielke Jr. - Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"
> Skeptical Science - Rebuttal to "Meet the Denominator"
> uknowispeaksense - Rebuttal to "Does size matter?"
> Whac-A-Troll - Rebuttal to "The results I got from parsing poptech's list"
> Yahoo Answers - Rebuttal to "PopularTechnology...Expertise.... Seriously Delusional?"
(2) This second section includes general rebuttals to common criticisms:
> 97% of the climate science literature disagrees with the list.
> Every major scientific organization disagrees with the list.
> The list does not define low climate sensitivity.
> The list does not present a scientific argument.
> The list has been cherry picked.
> The list has been debunked, discredited or refuted.
> The list has broken links.
> The list has not been peer-reviewed.
> The list uses "weasel words".
> The list's title implies the papers were written to support skeptic arguments.
> All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.
> None of the papers on the list argue against AGW.
> None of the papers on the list argue against consensus.
> Supplemental papers are counted.
> Some papers on the list are commentary or editorials.
> Some papers on the list are duplicates.
> Some papers on the list are hidden behind a paywall.
> Some papers on the list are mutually exclusive [contradictory].
> Some papers on the list are not relevant.
> Some papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
> Some papers on the list are not peer-reviewed because they are a "Letter".
> Some papers on the list are not physical science papers.
> Some papers on the list are not research papers.
> Some papers on the list are not widely cited.
> Some papers on the list are old.
> Some papers on the list are outdated.
> Some papers on the list are refuted by a blog post.
> Some papers on the list contain errors.
> Some papers on the list discredit the entire list.
> Some papers on the list do not argue against AGW.
> Some papers on the list do not argue against climate change denial.
> Some papers on the list do not argue against global warming.
> Some papers on the list have been debunked, discredited or refuted.
> Some papers on the list have been retracted.
> Some papers were listed based only on their title.
> Most of the papers on the list come from Energy & Environment.
> Papers on the list come from "dog astrology" journals.
> Some journals on the list are not indexed in a Thomson Reuters product.
> Some journals on the list are not peer-reviewed.
> Some journals on the list are trade journals.
> Some journals on the list do not use relevant reviewers.
> Some journals on the list have a low impact factor.
> Authors have demanded that their papers be removed from the list.
> Few of the papers on the list were authored by skeptics.
> Most of the papers on the list come from a small amount of authors.
> Some authors on the list are funded by energy companies.
> Some authors on the list are not climate scientists.
> Some authors on the list are not scientists.
> Some authors on the list are not skeptics.
> AGW hypothesis is never used by scientists.
> Alarmism is never used by scientists.
> CAGW is never used by scientists.
> DAGW is never used by scientists.
> The editor is not qualified to compile the list.
> Popular Technology.net was named to be misleading.
> Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.
> Popular Technology.net is a creationist website.
> Popular Technology.net is a right-wing website.
> Popular Technology.net is a "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is a climate "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is a climate change "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is a global warming "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is a science "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is an AGW "denier" website.
> Popular Technology.net is not a scholarly journal.
> Popular Technology.net is not cited, referenced or taken seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment