"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 90 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.
Table of Contents:
Criteria for Inclusion
Criteria for Removal
Rebuttals to Criticisms
Medieval Warm Period
Roman Warm Period
Urban Heat Island
1,500-Year Climate Cycle
CO2 Lags Temperature
An Inconvenient Truth
Journal Citation List
Tip: Use Ctrl+F (PC) or Command+F (Mac) to search this page.
Alarmism: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
This is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.
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.
"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
Popular Technology http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html