clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

As of Wednesday, February 12, 2014

"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

"'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 90 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

Before accepting any criticisms of this list, please read the detailed rebuttals.

Table of Contents:

Counting Method
Criteria for Inclusion
Criteria for Removal

Rebuttals to Criticisms


Climate Sensitivity
Coral Reefs
Gulf Stream
Hockey Stick
Medieval Warm Period
Roman Warm Period
Ocean Acidification
Polar Bears
Sea Level
Species Extinctions

Natural Disasters
Droughts, Floods
Heat Waves

Satellite Temperatures
Urban Heat Island
Weather Stations

1,500-Year Climate Cycle
CO2 Lags Temperature
Cosmic Rays

An Inconvenient Truth
Armed Conflict
Kyoto Protocol
Stern Review


Journal Citation List
Journal Notes
Impact Factor
Scientist Credentials


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 [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].

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. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.

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 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 peer-reviewed journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means they 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 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

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →
← Ctrl ← Alt
Ctrl → Alt →