Temperate Facts CO2 and GW Info Peer-Reviewed Studies
|
January 14 2011
WARNING: Do not accept any criticisms of this list without reading the notes or emailing, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com
Read: The following papers support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
AGW Alarm (defined), "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
Peer-Reviewed: (defined) "of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication."
Skepticism: (defined) "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object."
Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,
Peer-Reviewed Paper Count: 900+
Additional Paper Count: 90 (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.
Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Before accepting any criticism of this list please email, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
Formatting: All papers are cited as: "Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors". All "addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" are preceded by a " - " and italicized. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Hurricanes, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological.
Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,
"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 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate
"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."
- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidate
"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
Read more...