Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite
Posted by Cohenite, September 10th, 2008 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
The accusation of a lack of peer review (PR) by those who mount arguments against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is at the heart of the elitism, consensus and ad hominem approach used by many supporters of AGW.
It is a red herring. Science should be like the Law; transparent and universally accessible.
It should not be used by specialists to dominate the general populace, or to promulgate ideological based alterations to the social and economic structure. Nor should it be used to stifle debate because, apart from anything else, the importance of science is diminished by such oppression. Because the AGW advocates have used such tactics, and been supported by a sizeable proportion of the mainstream media, the importance of blogs has grown. Their importance has also been highlighted by the degree of vitriol leveled at anti-AGW sites.
Most of all the PR argument is simply wrong.
As a layman my AGW education curve has been steep. But it has been informed by a number of peer reviewed papers which have provided substantial critiques of AGW. In the interest of providing a rebuttal to the insidious PR stigma I present my ‘top 10’ papers which mount arguments against AGW, nine of them peer-reviewed.
I have had to exclude a number of valuable articles; the McLean and Quirk paper on the Great Pacific Climate Change was my first exposure to the misrepresentation of temperature base periods; the first Beck paper is a notable exclusion; the castigation against Beck was particularly condescending and elitist, no doubt because he does not have a PhD; likewise none of the valuable contributions made by Monckton, Watts, Castles, Hughes, Lucia, Bob Tisdale or Steve Short are eligible.
But I am going to list 10 papers, and start with a non peer-reviewed paper as an exception because of his sustained and exemplary efforts, any one of which is worthy of a Doctorate.
1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address;
How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008)
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
This is a seminal paper which synthesizes all the errors and obfuscations to do with the Hockey Stick. It also demonstrates McIntyre’s methodical, scientific and unadorned approach to the issue.
2. Craig Loehle’s paper;
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
This paper was important because it was a counterpoise to Mann’s tree-ring data and provided good support for the Medieval Warming Period, a major obstacle to AGW.
3.Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058
This paper really touched a nerve and the level of hostility leveled at it was astounding; it mostly boiled down to nit-picking about Raobcore data and whether a falsification was distinct from a bias. The second link is to an addendum to the paper; comments 69-74 are entertaining.
4.Koutsoyiannis et al;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008
This link is to the first presentation. This was a crucial paper; it covered the 18 year predictive history of the GCM’s on a regional basis; regionalism is the Achilles Heel of AGW.
5.Stockwell;
http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf
Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008
This paper did the job on CSIRO and demonstrated the political imput into the AGW science.
6. Misckolczi;
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
This is my favourite. It has everything; the dead hand of AGW censorship, and the demolition of the AGW’s semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere. People have quibbled about the Kirchhoff equations but Miskolczian –ve feedbacks have been established.
7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen;
Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27. 2007
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cookieSet=1
The fallacy of a global average temperature was taken to task in this paper, and, again, the reaction was hostile. This paper wittily compared averaging temperature to averaging the phone book; an important addition to the regionalism lexicon.
8. Spencer and Braswell;
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2253.1
No list would be complete without Mr Cloud and –ve feedback. As well, Spencer has been a bastion of reliable temperature data. This was still a close call. Minschwaner and Dessler’s paper on RH decline as a response to increasing CO2 is a crucial paper, conforming to Miskolczi’s feedbacks.
9.Chilingar;
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2008 , pages 1 – 9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
An important paper about convective heat transfer which relegates CO2 radiative heating to its proper subordinate position; and incorporates atmospheric pressure as a heating factor. Thanks to Louis for alerting me to the paper. An honourable mention to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper on the fallacy of the greenhouse concept and a host of other errors AGW science makes.
10. Pielke Sr et al;
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 112. 2007.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
An elegant paper which uses Stefan-Boltzman to support regionalism and show that the notion of a radiative imbalance is defeated by regional temperature based energy differentials. Somewhat superfluous since AR4, FIG 1 shows no global radiative imbalance.
Given the above, what 10 papers can AGW supporters produce to vindicate AGW?
Cohenite,
Newcastle, Australia
Advertisement
296 Responses to “Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
“The age of the universe is calculated using very fine ‘temperature’ measurements of the cosmic background radiation. ”
Thats all nonsense too. But its less directly harmful nonsense.
Arrenhius’ thesis, a fine inductive leap at the time, was proved wrong. Thats the way of things. If some of your inductive leaps weren’t proved wrong it means you aren’t coming up with anything new.
cohenite said…”with that in mind I direct you to this AR4 graph:…”
The thing that slays me about the graphs is the expanded vertical temperature scale. We all know that is compared to the average temperature of about 15 C, and that the anomaly is used to give the graph readability. The uneducated, however, look at a rise on a graph of 0.5 C and think it means a great deal due to the steepness of the curve.
I like this comparison on Ian Schumacker’s page:
http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Compare Figure 1 to Figure 5, where the vertical axis has been put in better perspective to the 15 C average.
“In other words, it’s derived from a very very long chain of reasoning coming out of, essentially, the the static you see on an analog TV set when it’s not tuned to a station… Of course, my analogy doesn’t refute your argument; I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily far fetched.”
It is far-fetched. Long linear chains of deductive reasoning are always going to come out with stupid conclusions.
Our reasoning must be convergent. And never fall for this vanity that we can nut things out with linear chains of deductive thought.
Such linear chains of reasoning are not sensitive to the tiniest mistake in any part of the chain. And they put all the other tools away for long stretches, leaving only deduction and maths.
We must come at problems from all angles and in a convergent way. Modern cosmology has been taken over by mathematicians posing as natural philosophers. Its a particularly hard priesthood-cartel to break as it has erected an impenetrable maths-barrier.
But its getting sillier all the time because these people don’t know a reduction to absurdity when they see it.
“‘Deniers’ do need to be clear on what they expect as evidence and it has to be reasonable……”
I for one have been clear you lying filthy idiot. If you cannot come up with the evidence WHAT IS THAT TELLING YOU YOU MORON?
What is it telling you?
If you don’t know what thats telling you you are just too stupid for the subject.
Michael said…”Soon and Baliunas came a cropper when they “re-established the MWP””
I’m curious as to who did the ‘cropper’-ing. It wasn’t the crew at RC, was it? That’s where most of the discrediting comes from these days.
Gordon; have a look at Fig’s 5 & 6 in this paper;
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Gordon,
It wasn’t RC, it was a host of the people whose papers were cited by Soon and Baliunas. When they saw how they had misused those cited works, they were less than pleased.
I’m still curious how cohenite manages to reconcile McKitrick & Essex with Loehle.
Some kind of specific acceptance of the completely contradictory.
“This is convergent falsification. ”
A laugh a minute, you should get a standup act.
Micheal; there have been numerous explanations offered by me and other commentators during the course of this thread as to why your allegation of some profound, ineluctable contradiction between the Essex paper’s denigration of the concept of a global average temperature and Loehle’s paper, which gives a mean representation of a number of regional anomalies where the MWP was expressed in regionally different ways, is wrong; Loehle did this to enable a graphic representation, and a form consistent rebuttal of the egregious Mann fictional hockey stick graph which was expressed on a global basis; Loehle did what he did to make a consistent rebuttal of Mann; your persistence with your spurious complaint is puerile and typical of the AGW based criticisms that have been on this thread.
Cohenite, probably trained in environmental science at RMIT! no prior science needed…says a lot doesnt it!
No no SJT. This is no scattershot approach. We are talking convergent falsification. Which is entirely redundant by the way. If that gives your argument-from-smugness the ring of truth to it. It puts us all in a bit of a bind to be called upon to rip to pieces a way of thinking that has no evidence in favour of it in the first place…..
…No evidence in favour of it in the first place by your own admission!!!! Or at least by your own OMISSION.
Because is you have some evidence let us have it right here right now and I’m not setting a high bar at all:
GO!!!!
And another thing Michael and others; if you want real misrepresentation and obfuscation of science, noone does it better than Mann; the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW; without it AGW is just Hansen synaptic disentergration; well, guess what, the Hockey Stick is an illusion;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601#comments
“the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW;”
Not at all, I have asked a researcher about the significance of the HS. It only represents about 10% of the case. Read the report, there is a lot more information in there than just the HS.
“the Hockey Stick is absolutely essential for AGW”
Sure was enough for me. What is more related to Cape Grim CO2 measurements?
“Numerous explanations” cohenite??
Well, several statments of disagreement.
McKitrick and Essex don’t just deride a global mean temp, they take aim at any claims of average temp, castigating the very notion that this has any real physcial meaning. They parade a series of rather silly scenarios to do so.
Loehle paper on its own is less of a problem. It’s pretty weak for a number of reasons, but is at least an interesting attempt that could be re-done. But his self-defined method of “simple averaging” of temps is exactly what McKitrick and Essex are taking a mighty swipe at.
It’s simply untenable that one of your “top 10″ trashes the methodology employed by one of the others.
Well coordinated SJT and gavin.
Will: “f course, my analogy doesn’t refute your argument; I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessarily far fetched”
It was far fetched in the context of what was already known about absorbers of electromagnetic radiation i.e. that they are also good emitters. When the temperatures of the source and the sample are equal (the situation with the atmosphere and earth’s surface) you don’t see any absorption (Kirchoff’s law proposed 40 years earlier).
Hang on a minute Michael. What are you saying here?
Are you playing some word-game where you resuscitate Mann and run down Loehle on the basis of different meanings of the word “averaging”?
You might want to expand on this a bit just to show us that this isn’t some stupid word-game where you re-calibrate the worthiness of two studies by reference to a critique of one of them.
Its as though you are running further and further from the subject at hand.
So lets get this right. You’ve pivoted on the word “averaging” used in a critique of one study. And used this as a leverage point to lift up a fraudulent study and beat down a study that you cannot show is invalid.
Prior to that you or someone else was using the fact that Mann has used way too many proxies in his new study to put down a study that used a more than adequate 10 proxies.
If it was up to me I would have used maybe 5 and worked harder to get all aspects of the use of the data right. But in any case you seem to be using different studies against themselves by just bitching about things rather than going direct at the subject with one or other study in mind.
But since you yourself cannot come up with any evidence for this racket this sort of bitching about indirect stuff is really just what I call “ontologically conjuring the Sasquatch.”
You might take note of various studies. But you’ve got to focus on the subject itself.
In passing I will note that Manns first study was obvious science fraud without worrying about any statistical esoterica.
Using tree-ring growth for CO2 levels would have been one thing. But he used it for warming. Which obviously was going to lead to a fake run-up in overstated warming post-war
Well Cohenite, now that this thread seems to have run its course, how would you summarise it. Would you for eg,
1. Change the list of 10
2. Increase or decrease your level of scepticism.
3. Seen any links to paper(s), peer reviewed or other wise, that definitively underpin the AGW position.
4. Come across any evidence at all that would supports the Fed government screwing up the economy.
5. Increased or decreased your confidence on the IPCC/peer review process.
6 Seen any case for increasing or decreasing the level of science funding in climate research by Govt agencies.
Malcolm; next port of call; 10 worst, as in misleading, pro-AGW papers.
Great — that will be fun.
It should certainly get the one dimensional on the hop, and demonstrate yet again that it is not enough for the alarmists to think they are right, but they have to be seen to have been right.
That means the processes have to stack up as well— which they dont.
Cohenite
notice SJT and Gavin make much ado about correlation being causation, or not so much ado in one case.
It will be interesting seeing what the 10 worst could be.
Well, this blog has been very telling. I was absolutely gobsmacked when Will Nitschke stated that it was not “fair or reasonable” to ask for evidence that a theory is correct! Why not just openly proclaim that AGW supporters have a ‘divine right’ to say and do what ever they want? “Thus Hansen spake the words and the words became truth; the heavens and the Earth aligning themselves accordingly!”
It is fascinating that no evidence was offered that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and that it was considered insulting (or unfair) to even ask for evidence!
The IPCC, of course, does make an argument for CO2 as the primary driver of climate change. It goes like this: “We have come up with a theory that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and built models to this effect. When we hold CO2 constant in our models, the global temperatures do not change. Since historical temperatures have changed and CO2 has changed, CO2 must be the primary driver of Climate change!”
Here is a similar argument: I have a theory that President Bush is responsible for all good things that have happened on Earth for the last 8 years and have built a model to that effect. When I remove President Bush from my model, no good things happen. In reality, some good things did happen and President Bush was in office…proving that President Bush is responsible for all the good things!
The (non)arguments are identical in logical structure, yet I doubt that any AGW supporter who bought into the IPCC argument would have any trouble recognizing the ridiculus, circular nature of the ‘Bush=goodness’ argument!
It continues to astound me that there is such a huge push to inflict untold suffering on the human population based completely on an argument that is obviously rubbish!
Again, I say, one can not be an AGW supporter without a healthy amount of cognitive disonance! Welcome to the post-rational world!
Right Jim. The alarmist camp is dead from the neck up. But this doesn’t stop Tim Lamberts MAJOR-ME….(that is to say the beloved Professor Barry Brook….) from continuing with a power-load of circular reasoning.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the-sun-got-stuck/#more-421
Here he contradicts another thread he wrote. Which claimed that the question was why haven’t we cooled even more? Why have the temperatures held up? Then in this other thread he talks about El Nina and solar influences. He doesn’t think once about the oceans having accumulated a great amount of joules and still being relatively “warm” in this regard.
But nothing phases these guys and least of all Tim Lamberts Major-Me. He just keeps going like a combination between Uncle Fester and the eveready bunny. After much circular reasoning he announces this bizzare conclusion:
“Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase.”
He says this yet he will not come on here and present a study that brings forth evidence for CO2-warming. He is assuming 3 degrees for a doubling. Total nonsense and flat our irrational. But he doesn’t so much as have any evidence for CO2-warming. He doesn’t know of any evidence for it, he cannot find anyone with such evidence. He doesn’t know anyone who could track such evidence down.
By his own reasoning this CANNOT be right. Since he is going on the air temperature alone. And we have had at least a 5% increase in CO2 since 1998. So why at least 2 years of cooling? If he used the Argos floats or the sea level as proxy for joules within the system, rather than merely air temperature, he might be able to make a case for some sort of humbler CO2 influence. But no he’s sticking with his ludicrous 3 degrees for a doubling based on nothing at all.
Imagine if this 3 degrees business were true? How fortunate we would be? We’d have our own thermostat. Our own ability to expand the tropical and subtropical zones to help us through the Landsheidt minimum. I’d like to believe this stuff only its rubbish. You put on your wishful thinking hat you might imagine one tenth of this slipping through the data and unable to be recognized. But if CO2-warming isn’t negative its probably even less than that.
“It continues to astound me that there is such a huge push to inflict untold suffering on the human population based completely on an argument that is obviously rubbish!’
…and riddled with fraudulent misrepresentation, involving a very bad system that is 300 years over due for a rethink, but willingly condoned by those who by their silence, are complicit.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
Graeme,
You remind me of the last time, many years ago, that I actually tried to discuss something at the RC website. They were making fun of Dr. Bill Gray, who has maintained for decades that 20th century temperatures were driven by ocean cycles and that global cooling was imminent in the early 21st Century. They were not kind, basically calling him a fossil and a moron, because he could not fully explain the ocean cycle/climate mechanism.
Now, as the planet cools precisely as Bill Gray predicted, the AGW crowd says it is just a brief delay in the warming and the result of some ocean cycle, although they fail to explain the mechanism.
Has the AGW community ever admitted to being mistaken about anything related to climate change? I don’t recall such a confession. You would think that with something as complex as climate change, that they may admit that they were mistaken about something over the last 20 years. But no! I gues they truly believe that they guessed right from the beginning and that all of the evidence against them is simply wrong!
Hospitalization may be in order!
That we will be going into cooling appears to be an hypothesis converging from more than one angle from all the scientific areas where people take evidence seriously.
I’ve taken a punt and am predicting that the sea-level, and then CO2-levels, will also turn down. The sea levels in one or two years from now. The CO2 levels a few years after that. Its only punt but its hard to see how it could be otherwise.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/co2-levels-can-drop-precipitously-and-will-drop-soon/
Graeme Bird,
Not using an Apple computer are you?
Easier to use Philip Stott’s blog method – the Apple Mac thingy.
Jim Clarke,
Bill Grays’s ideas on the oceans driving the climate seems interesting – Lance Endersbee has pointed out that its essentially a surface area effect we are dealing with – rather than the variations of the internal physics of a whisper thin flim of gas enveloping the Earth.
Incidentally Luke seems to have found a new home – David Stockwell’s blog.
Its not a waltz. Its no foxtrot. But its some sort of dance between the sun and the oceans that does it.
Its a one-way-biased system and if either one won’t dance we are headed for cooling.
Louis: “Incidentally Luke seems to have found a new home – David Stockwell’s blog.”
I thought I noticed a distinct rise in noise level over there.
“notice SJT and Gavin make much ado about correlation being causation,”
Liar
[...] To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here . [...]
[...] read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here [...]
SJT
I sense from your reactions and mealy mouthed retorts that you admit losing, but then it’s not what they say that is the clue, but how they say it.
I see Al Gore’s financial state might have reached a tipping point during the last day or so. Are the AGW crowd going to start a chook raffle to help him meet his costs?
The significance of Beck’s works should not be overlooked, despite not making it to the top-ten.
Most significant for science is IMO that Ernst Georg Beck did his homework. He did a literature search and reconstructed several measured CO2 profiles, investigating how and where the CO2 levels were measured. The last being from his background as a chemist; and being familiar with some of the still-used techniques for measuring gas concentrations.
The historical reconstruction of CO2 levels pre-Mauna Loa and the Keeling revisionism of “historical CO2″ is not just interesting and enlightening; it’s devastating to the AGW via CO2 hypothesis. CO2 levels of 400 ppm measured in the middle of the 19th century didn’t provoke a tipping point.
CO2 levels were measured to rise (and fall) not only in the expected diurnal and seasonal cycles, but also over several years.
Regionality of CO2 levels is also significant. Concentrations measured over the South Atlantic in the 1920′s varied by (IIRC) well over 100 ppm, being lowest in the cold parts and highest where it got warmer. There are obviously effects due to solubility in water.
More recent research has confirmed metabolic, biological processes significantly alter surface-level CO2 concentrations, be that on water or land. Photosynthesis is important in the biological processes; but that can change raidly with cloud cover.
It is all very, very complicated. And it seems that many things that are as yet largely unknown are significant natural contributors to changes in CO2 levels.
Not that CO2 has much to do with climate; other than feeding the life that’s evolved along with changes in climate.
Right. I was impressed with it. And it changed my head around since it means that if we don’t get our energy-production together really quickly we could face disaster.
I really was hoping for that cold snap to come with high CO2. If we don’t trash this crowd and get energy production up we could face famines across the world.
I cannot shame or abuse a single valid argument against Beck out of these people. I think this was stunning work as to its importance to policy.
[...] Ten of the best. [...]
Northwest Passage II Monday, Sep. 13, 1937
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html
Year was 1937 —– 3 years after 1934, the warmest year.
We can change the climate, yes we can, prevent the coming Ice Age. Giant Panatomic Canal.
[...] the process of answering the post with these links he offered some.. ‘peer reviewed literature..’ Jennifer Marohasy Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite Pete’sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming .: U.S. Senate [...]
[...] Climate Change Deniers “Top Ten List” Jump to Comments “Jennifer Marohasy’s Denier1 Blog has published the climate change / global warming Deniers [Fanfare] “Ten of the Best Climate Research Papers (Nine Peer-Reviewed): A Note from Cohenite“ [...]
Climate Change Deniers “Top Ten List” http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/climate-change-deniers-top-ten-list/
I am reminded, however, of conversations with creationists/ID proponents where a smattering of citations are provided (where usually only about a sentence or two is topical) and the overwhelming weight of evidence in opposition is ignored.
There are always abberant results, these don’t, necessarily, invalidate anything.
Here is a more comprehensive list…
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Ernst-Georg Beck
50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, pp. 1017-1028(12), Number 7, 2008)
- Ernst-Georg Beck
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638(8), November 1, 2000)
- Heinz Hug
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 26: 159-173, 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- Richard S. Courtney
Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 27-33, 1998)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger
Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski
Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 1, 2004)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas
Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Vol. 119, 1992)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal
Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936(8), December 2007)
- Richard S.J. Tol
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Climate Change and the World Bank: Opportunity for Global Governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- S.A. Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, 2009)
- J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība
Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
- William Kininmonth
Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard
- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard
Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
- Tim F. Ball
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, No. 42, March 2007)
- Lance Endersbee
Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, Page 212, December 29, 2006)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman
Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619(5), September 2007)
- David C. Archibald
Climate Policy : Quo Vadis?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 207-213, January 2009)
- Hans Labohm
Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447(7), July 2007)
- Arthur Rorsch
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 – 9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104(4), January 2009)
- Craig Loehle
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- Richard S. Courtney
Dangerous Assumptions (PDF)
(Nature, 452, 531-532, April 3, 2008)
- Roger Pielke Jr., Tom Wigley, Christopher Green
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- Robert M. Carter
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April, 2002)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, vol. 114, pp. 227-284, 1992)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono
Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88:6, 913-928, 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Does CO2 really drive global warming? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- Robert H. Essenhigh
Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144(14), January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- Craig D. Idso
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels
Extreme Weather Trends Vs. Dangerous Climate Change: A Need for Critical Reassessment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2,pp. 327-332, March 2005)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 30, 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
- Christopher Monckton
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
- R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
Global Warming (PDF)
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- Marcel Leroux
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 247-256, 2005)
- David Deming
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, July 2006)
- David Henderson
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Number 2, 2007)
- David Henderson
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, vol. 111, no 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, September 2008)
- Madhav L. Khandekar
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
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. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Willie H. Soon
In defense of Milankovitch (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L24703, December 21, 2006)
- Gerard Roe
Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3 , pp. 367-373(7), July 2009)
- J. Huston McCulloch
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany
Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 279-302, July 2009)
- Indur M. Goklany
Is Stern Review on climate change alarmist?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 521-532(12), September 2007)
- S. Niggol Seo
Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
- Ya. K. Kondratyev
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, August, 2008)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 4, April 2005)
- Christopher A. Davey, Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 17: 45–53, 2001)
- Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis
Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, 2008)
- G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
- Olavi Kamer
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? (PDF)
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides
On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback
( Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607(5), July 2006)
- Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy Fuels, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784, April 1, 2009)
- Robert H. Essenhigh
- Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June, 2008)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
- Fred Goldberg
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 23: 1–9, 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF)
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner
Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121(17), January 2009)
- Tom Quirk
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner
The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder
The cause of global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray
The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA – Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008)
- Ivan Jankovic
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (PDF)
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)
Madhav L. Khandekar, TS Murty, P Chittibabu
The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)
- Donald W. Miller
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible? (PDF)
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
- Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.
The value of climate forecasting
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 7, Number 3, June, 1985)
- Garth W. Paltridge
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard
Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, February 2009)
- Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68 Issue 3, Pages 470-479, March 24, 2008)
- Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey
An Inconvenient Truth:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September, 2007)
- David R. Legates
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer
Hockey Stick: (MBH98)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
- Reply to comment by Huybers on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (PDF)
(Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005)
- Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years”
(Science, Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007)
- Gerd Bürger
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle
- Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1 , pp. 93-100(8), January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland
A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8, June 2, 2008)
- C. Loehle
Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
(PNAS, Vol. 106, No. 6, February 10, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
[...] top 10 paper that prove your position. I cede that responsibility to others, I like them all: Link1 Link2 Link3 I responded to your request. Now will you inform me of incontrovertible evidence [...]
The latest issue of Energy and Environment has a special section on climate change.
The article ‘A null hypothesis for CO2′ E&E 22(4) 171-200 (2010) may be worthy of a mention here.