Some papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary. 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only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal.
Regardless, the full citation is provided so there is no excuse about not being able to locate a paper using a search engine like Google. 335-348, March 2005)- Jack Barrett Expected halt in the current global warming trend?
All broken links will eventually be fixed by changing them to persistent URLs using the DOI system.
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. "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? The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people." - Al Gore, Former U. 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 Real : No 97% study exists that shows 44,000 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. Archer Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. (PDF) (New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, pp. Soon Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. Archibald On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF) (Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering, Volume 13, Number 3, pp.
While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as 50% (humans are the primary cause). (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review. 685-706, September 2006)- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 3-17, March 2007)- Lance Endersbee Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF) (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. Soon Climate stability: an inconvenient proof (Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 260-268, September 2007)- Olavi Karner Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature (PDF) (Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 13, pp. Njau Evolution of the Earth's Global Climate (Energy Sources, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp.
"A tour de force list of scientific papers..." - Robert M. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].
Environmental Scientist "Wow, the list is pretty impressive ... 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 Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [e.g. Pilkey Global Climate Change (Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp. 105-121, January 2009)- Tom Quirk Earth's Temperature / CO2 Equilibrium Prior to 1850 (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Cropp Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF) (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. Tscheuschner * Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. : This is misleading since only a very small minority of scientists have actually expressed a position on AGW from these organizations. 707-714, September 2006)- Vincent Gray Thermocline flux exchange during the Pinatubo event (PDF) (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 19, October 2006)- D. 66-72, May 2007)- David Bellamy, Jack Barrett Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 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. Chilingar Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF) (Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Chilingar (Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of every member's position in relation to these organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. : The list has never been debunked, discredited or refuted, as all known criticisms of this list have been rebutted.