Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1

Posted on 3 November 2011 by Jim Powell

Science progresses through the peer-reviewed literature; unless an idea, theory, or interpretation is reported in a peer-reviewed journal, it is just someone’s unsubstantiated opinion. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not ensure that an author’s arguments will stand the test of time, but rather that they have been scrutinized by experts and judged to represent a contribution to science that others in the field can benefit from knowing about.

Climate skeptics give the impression that there is a substantial case against human-caused global warming. But is it true? One way to shed light on the question is to review the peer-reviewed literature, as Naomi Oreskes did in her classic article [Science 306, p. 1686, 2004; see] She searched papers written between 1993 and 2003 for the keywords “global climate change.” She turned up 928 papers, read each abstract, and judged that none “reject[ed] the consensus position” that humans are causing global warming. 

Instead of starting with the literature, I began with a list of over 100 skeptics who have or give the impression they have scientific expertise. For example, Christopher Monckton, despite his lack of scientific credentials, gives talks in which he takes on the guise of a scientist. Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist, blogs about complicated scientific matters. George Will, in contrast, while acting as though he knows more than scientists, does not pretend to be one. I include Monckton and Watts, but not Will. 

I searched the Web of Science (WoS), which covers more than 8,000 peer-reviewed journals, for each skeptic by name, being careful to include variations in the spelling of the first name. I counted only primary articles; no book reviews, review articles, comments, replies to previously published papers, speeches, presentations, conference summaries, etc. I searched for articles classified by the WoS as “Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences.”

I read the abstract and sometimes the conclusions of each article. If an article takes a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming, I included it. I did not include papers that propose some improvement in methodology but go no further.

Admittedly, my list is subjective. I wanted to count papers that a reasonable person might conclude undercut human-caused global warming, erring on the side of inclusion. I will be happy to consider any skeptic, paper, or correction that readers suggest. This is a work in progress.

Some examples may help:

Because it appeared to cast doubt on the premises of human-caused global warming and the work of the IPCC, I counted a paper by R. A. Pielke, Sr. (2002) which concluded, “Unless it can be shown that land cover change and biogeochemical effects on the regional and global climate systems are insignificant relative to the radiative effect of a doubling of CO2, the IPCC and U.S. National Assessment reports are, therefore, summaries of sensitivity only.”

I counted a paper by Curry (2011) whose abstract reads in its entirety,"This paper argues that the IPCC has oversimplified the issue of uncertainty in its Assessment Reports, which can lead to misleading overconfidence. A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself." Her claim that bias colors our understanding appeared to me to be an attempt to call human-caused global warming into question. 

I did not count a paper by Klotzbach et al. (2009) titled, “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere,” which concluded, “The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.” This paper suggests we have a way to go in our understanding of surface and satellite temperatures, but does not go so far as to imply that once we have that understanding, human-caused global warming will be called into question.

I did not count a paper by Fall et al. (2011) titled, "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the US Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends," whose abstract concluded, "Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend." This paper did not seem to cross the line to suggest explicitly that poor station siting might have given the false impression that global warming is real.  

The results are shown on

To use the database, click on a name to bring up a list of that skeptic’s publications arranged chronologically. By hovering the cursor over the link, you can read an excerpt from the abstract or in some cases the entire abstract. Click on the link and you will be taken to the article itself or to the abstract, if there is one.

Note that some skeptics tend to publish with others: Baliunas with Soon; Balling with the Idsos; etc. So the total number of papers is somewhat less than the total obtained from adding the numbers for each skeptic. 

The point of this exercise is not just the number of papers, but what they say and whether they make a case against human-caused global warming. In subsequent posts, I will offer what I regard as the "takeaways" from these papers. 

Note: Several skeptics have published in Energy & Environment. The WoS includes only some of these papers, perhaps because somewhere along the line, the journal changed its review practices. I include any papers from E&E that come up in the WoS.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 83:

  1. I recall a buzz about a questionable journal some years ago -- I think it was Energy and Environment, but cannot recall for sure. At the time, they claimed to have a process known as "super review" or "superreview" or something like that. I peeled back a layer, and I learned that "superreview" meant that if the author of the paper had ever published anything in the peer reviewed literature, then that was good enough, and the current manuscript under consideration did not need to be subject to the normal peer review process. So, "superreview" would better be called "no review," because that's what it was. With a few minutes on google today, I could not find anything about superreview and Energy & Environment. But, they have been taken to task a number of times for shoddy papers and questionable review practices.
    0 0
  2. Regarding Energy & Environment's review process (or rather lack thereof), David C. Archibald's "Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response" (PDF) is a good example.

    At the top of its page 31 there are two paragraphs which are almost identical and where the author clearly forgot to delete either of them.

    If the paper was reviewed at all, let alone by qualified reviewers, surely that double paragraph would have been spotted by someone? Or am I too naive to believe a 'scientific journal' which claims to "act as a forum for constructive and professional debate" should spot and correct such basic errors?
    0 0
  3. 2, Gringo,

    I'd guess that the error would more likely be an editorial one than one of review. That is, review probably incited the new version of the paragraph, but then whoever edited the text mistakenly inserted the new paragraph and forgot to remove the old.

    A pretty harmless, human mistake, IMO.
    0 0
  4. Here is one that you can remove.

    The one publication linked to William Kininmonth is a Heartland Institute paper.

    How does that qualify as being from a peer reviewed scientific journal?

    The link is hosted by the Australian Climate Science Coalition, an Australian climate denier group.

    From Sourcewatch.
    The Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) is a climate change skeptics website created by the the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), a spin-off group created by the the corporate funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.
    0 0
  5. It would be worth clarifying that Jo Nova's real name is Joanne Codling (perhaps in her hyperlink?), as presumably she wouldn't be able to use her stage name in a peer reviewed journal :)
    0 0
  6. Your statistics show one peer reviewed paper by Hans Labohm. According to the journal itself it is an opinion and i can not imagine that this is peer reviewed.

    Would be strange as he is and economist and not a scientist.
    0 0
  7. A bunch of anti-AGW papers are linked here, if you're not already aware of the page.
    0 0
  8. The irony is that Anthony Watts is a co-author of the Fall et al paper mentioned above.

    "Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical
    Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends"

    So one of the great deniers has 0 publications throwing doubt on global warming, but one paper debunking the very issue on which he made his name! :))

    0 0
  9. I think this is a worthwhile project. It will only enhance the site to have someone familiar with all the skeptic papers and able to provide an overview. If nothing emerges to challenge the scientific consensus, visitors to the site can be assured we have done our homework.
    0 0
  10. Mikeh--I will check that.
    Macoles--Excellent point.
    Heijdensejan--will check.
    Barry--will check.
    Thanks to all.

    Please keep the comments and suggestions coming.
    0 0
  11. Mikah--the paper by Kininmonth was in E&E and evidently Heartland picked it up and printed it. I need to reference the original.
    Heijdensejan--that paper by Labohm was also in E&E but the link does not lead there. Will fix.
    0 0
  12. Now I recall the problem. E&E is not one of the electronic journals made available by the University of Southern California, the only one to which I have access. From E&E's website, it appears the only way to get to back issues of E&E is to buy a personal subscription, which I am unwilling to do. Thus the only way I can provide the text or abstract of an article in E&E is to find it somewhere else, as with the papers by Kininmonth and Labohm.

    E&E has this statement on its website: "E&E is now included in ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index and current contents."
    0 0
  13. Very interesting work. I look forward to seeing the future developments.

    One thing you might want to indicate somehow is papers advancing arguments which have subsequently been withdrawn. For instance, Lindzen has conceded that various iterations of his 'cloud iris' hypothesis have been disproven. I didn't see any papers from Spencer or Christy on their early satellite temperature record, but if any do eventually get added it would be worthwhile to indicate that they later agreed they had gotten it wrong. Et cetera.

    Barry's idea about cross-checking your results against lists of 'skeptic papers' is also a good idea. SkS has a database of peer reviewed skeptic arguments here. However, it is user maintained and thus not always accurate - and certainly not all inclusive.
    0 0
  14. I have looked through the list for papers in E&E. In addition to the ones by Kininmonth and Labohm, there are single papers by Ball, Easterbrook, and Rorsch. Five in total. Again, these are the ones that come up in the WoS that meet the criteria I used.
    0 0
  15. This is a useful post and a great reference.

    But I think Jim is being VERY generous to include anything from E&E.

    In my opinion ANy paper in E&E is totally discredited.

    This link Why E&E is flawed articulates quite well the problems with E&E.

    It's a politically driven journal (self-admitted by it's editor), published more "skeptic" papers than any other journal by a very long margin, has peer review processes which have been seriously questioned, and has a citation impact factor around 0.42 - less than one citation every four years. Nature, one of the most central scientific journals in this field, has an impact factor of around 30. The Journal of Climate, a mainstream but smaller climate journal, has an impact factor of 3.57.
    0 0
  16. 15, Mark: I agree. VERY generous. I would not call E&E a scientific journal. But we could get sued for saying that. :)
    0 0
  17. Jim... If you haven't seen this list you should check it out.

    I think the great information you're compiling here makes the most impact when placed in context to how much science is actually out there on climate change.
    0 0
  18. The trouble is, if you say E&E does not belong, then you are saying you are not going to rely solely on the WoS but are somehow going to decide journal by journal which belong and which do not. I presume there is a range of peer-reviewed practices among journals that make some better at it than others, but how to go back to say 1995 and decide that?
    0 0
  19. E&E might best be handled by another sort of 'footnote' like I had suggested for withdrawn arguments. That is, list the papers, but then note that there are reasons to consider the 'peer review' of E&E suspect. Err on the side of inclusion, but note factors which could reasonably have been used to exclude some things.
    0 0
  20. It would be useful if you could show the journal for each paper listed - it would give a clearer picture (i.e. are these papers in appropriate journals, or have they been slipped into low-impact journals on topics barely related to climate science?
    Excellent work though.
    0 0
  21. Monkey--Let me take a look at that. Good idea.
    0 0
  22. One of the 'heros' of Merchant of Doubt, Fred Singer's comments appear to be given more attention than I think are justified. Zero peer reviewed papers! Actually his comments deserve no attention whatsoever. Hm, he's one of the 'scientists' who supported the tobacco industry (nicotine isn't adictive, really!) and didn't believe ozone depletion was caused by CFC's.
    0 0
  23. When you say you are looking to include papers that "undercut human-caused global warming", I'm assuming you mean also those that argue for a lower sensitivity per doubling of CO2? I ask because many of the "skeptics" listed (e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, etc.) don't argue that humans don't cause global warming, but rather that the ECS is likely low. If that's the case, there are likely several more papers to be included.

    For example, the Douglass and Knox GRL paper (2005) suggests a low climate sensitivity (~ 0.6 C per CO2 doubling), but neither author has a paper included (not that I think this paper is particularly good). In fact, Douglass has quite a few papers that would be considered "skeptical" of global warming in this broader sense of the term, including those comparing modelled and actual temperature trends in the troposphere (GRL2004, Remote Sensing 2011, IJOC2007). I don't believe this is the same category as Klotzbach et al. (2009), as it directly calls into question the amount of warming projected by models. The DK2009 (Physics Letters A) paper that was referenced in Dessler 2011 argues that there is unlikely to be warming "in the pipeline". Anyhow, I found many of these on his UoR website if you want to peruse it to see which should be included.

    McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman (2010) also have a paper comparing measured and modelled tropospheric trends, which seems more relevant to the topic of man-made global warming than the hockey stick work currently listed.

    The Spencer and Braswell papers (2008 JoC, 2010 JGR, and 2011 Remote Sensing) should also probably be included in the list, as they implicity argue for a lower sensitivity than that obtained in the original Forster and Gregory (2006) method (which was about 1.65 C per CO2 doubling) and pave the way for the Lindzen and Choi (2011) paper that is included.

    Anyhow, hope that helps as a starting point. I confess I haven't heard of many of the other skeptics.
    0 0
  24. Thanks Troy. I will look into adding these papers.
    0 0
  25. Troy,

    I have added Douglass and Knox GRL (2005).

    The abstract of MMH (2010) concludes: "In data spanning 1979-2009, the observed trends are significant in some cases but tend to differ significantly from modeled trends." This did not seem to me to step over the line into directly calling human-caused global warming into question. A judgment call.

    Spencer and Braswell (2010) say, "These results underscore the need for more accurate methods of diagnosing feedback from satellite data and for quantitatively relating those feedbacks to long-term climate sensitivity." Ditto.

    Forster and Gregory (2006) write, "There is preliminary evidence of a neutral or even negative longwave feedback in the observations, suggesting that current climate models may not be representing some processes correctly if they give a net positive longwave feedback." Again, "preliminary" and "suggesting" and "may not be" do not quite cross my threshold. As I said, my list is admittedly subjective and someone else might wish to count this paper and others that I do not.

    I believe that the import of this group of papers is the overall set of "takeaways." In the next post, I will present what I believe are those takeaways.

    I welcome suggestions for papers I missed, as Troy has done.
    0 0
  26. To make it easy for simple folk like me it would be good if the Takeaways could be classified somehow. Perhaps...

    a) Conclusions which genuinely seem to question threads of pro-AGW science
    b) Conclusions which have since been brought into question (with links)
    c) Conclusions that have been convincingly rebutted, preferably by peer-reviewed work (with links)

    I'm sure you can improve on my suggestion, but you get the idea.
    0 0
  27. Jim Powell,
    WOW, what a great project ! !

    Excellent, thank you, it will make a great resource.

    I'm looking forward to watching it develop and grow.
    0 0
  28. Should MM 2005 be included? It doesn't actually say anything about Co2 or global warming, but rather states that a particular reconstruction of the past temperature is not statistically significant.
    0 0
  29. Jim ... this window into the body of knowledge produced by dissenters of the AGW hypothesis is sorely needed ... thanks for working on it.

    A couple of thoughts:

    * I think the citations are important ... both the absolute number but also who cited it; down the track it may be possible to show what % of the citations were by later skeptic papers (in your focus population) i.e. to gauge whether the paper influenced other than other skeptics; although to gauge that reliably it would be necessary to assess whether the citation by a non-skeptic paper was a debunk or otherwise.

    * many of the authors haven't published in years and years; I'd like to see a simple indicator of "last published"; some of these authors haven't dissented in years ... are they still doing research?

    * I'd also like to see an indication of the papers that resulted from actual field research and analysis ... not meta studies or desk reviews of data sets produced by another research project; too many skeptic contributions are from people who do not have the deep understanding of the natural processes which 'real' climate scientists gain from many years effort

    Thanks, Alan
    0 0
  30. Another thought ... let's see a similar database for leading climate scientists who support the AGW hypothesis.

    Notwithstanding the obvious arguments around bias against skeptic scientists by journals and research funders, it would be interesting to see the comparative level of contribution to the body of knowledge.

    Ta, Alan
    0 0
  31. Jim - you've done a great job - and I understand what you are saying about E&E (though i still think they are highly specious as a source of good science) - but, if you have the time, it might be worth looking at the citation index for each journal in which the "skeptic" papers are publsihed and compare that to the relevant citation index for mainstream climate science. I suspect I know what the answer would be.

    As I am sure you know one "measure" of the worth of a paper is how many citations it has scored. Just a suggestion.
    0 0
  32. Alan E "let's see a similar database for leading climate scientists who support the AGW hypothesis."

    If you have a look at the Interactive History tab on the top left you'll see that this is a major project just for the latest year. Let alone all years.
    0 0
  33. I did something similar using Congressman Rohrabacher's 100 List of scientists:

    On three occasions (Feb 4, 2010, March 10, 2010, and Feb 17, 2011), Rep. Rohrabacher has entered into the Congressional record an open letter signed by over 100 scientists and published as a full page ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, and Los Angeles Times. The letter was addressed to the President of the United States and flies in the face of the scientific understanding of climate change. The letter can be viewed here.

    The letter contained 115 signatures and made the following assertions:

    1.The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated
    2.Characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect
    3.Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest
    4.There has been no net global warming for over a decade
    5.The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior

    The result: Only nine of these 115 (8%) have published recent research which give evidence that they have some expertise in at least one of areas 3, 4, or 5. NONE have expertise in all three of these areas. Worse, more than 2/3 of the signers have NO RECENT PAPERS related to climate yet they felt qualified to sign a letter addressed to the President of the United States to tell him he is wrong and the science is wrong - the arrogance!
    0 0
  34. Jim,

    Certainly, it is subjective and up to you, as it is your database. However, I'll note that the Forster and Gregory (2006) was one of 10 studies included in the "constrained by past transient temperature evolutions" climate sensitivity box of AR4: Furthermore, the Murphy et al (JGR, 2009) paper basically just expands on the method, and there is more confident language used in that paper (indeed, they are confident enough in the method that they attempt to diagnose the aerosol forcings based on the sensitivity calculated early in the paper). The SB criticisms equally apply to Murphy et al (2009), which uses the same method as FG06.

    Basically, if I were going to make a peer-reviewed case for low sensitivity, I would try to show how the various lines of evidence for current estimates are flawed, and that correcting for these flaws would actually point to lower sensitivity. So, for example, I would use MMH2010 and the other model comparison papers to show that the models are running hot (and hence may overestimate sensitivity), the SB papers to show that the FG06 method should yield a lower sensitivity, the Douglas and Knox (2009) OHC paper to show that ocean warming suggests that the ECS is closer to the TCS, etc.

    I think that looking for a single paper that discredits the entire case for the IPCC likely value of ECS will turn up some crank papers, but that won't be the strongest case you can make in the peer-reviewed literature.

    So, that's why I would lobby for many of those papers that you don't necessarily see as "big picture". But, as you say, it's a judgment call.
    0 0
  35. CBD @13

    "I didn't see any papers from Spencer or Christy on their early satellite temperature record, but if any do eventually get added it would be worthwhile to indicate that they later agreed they had gotten it wrong. Et cetera."

    I would take a little exception to this comment. Whle there are grounds for doubting C & S's scientific credentials on other issues, I don't see grounds for questioning them on this. They used one analytical technique, RSS have used another. They have bounced off each other and seem to have homed in on a common result. That is how science is meant to work and I have seen nothing in the interplay between these 2 groups over many years to suggest otherwise.

    Just because we have valid criticisms about other aspects of the science they are putting forward does not meen that we should label every activity they have engaged in as flawed.
    0 0
  36. Glenn,
    That is not how it happened at all. C&S analyzed the data first and then claimed for over a decade that climate was cooling and their unbiased satelite data showed it [Pielke Sr advocated using satelite data as the primary metric of AGW during this time, perhaps this relates to his current proposal to use ocean heat]. RSS and others then showed that the C&S analysis was in error and corrected them. C&S only changed their calculations after they were proven wrong. C&S did not "bounce off each other", rather C&S were dragged kicking and screaming to where they are now. C&S now ignores the fact that they were wrong and deniers used their data over that time to mislead policymakers in the worst way. Every error they made caused a cooling bias in their record? Normally we find that when scientists have to make several choices in data analysis they have some errors that increase the result and some that lower it. This results in the final analysis being close to the true result. Why did C&S only have cooling errors? C&S continue to run lower than RSS, should I believe that?

    The entire approach of C&S was wrong and they deserve to be called out on it. This needs to be remembered when we look at their current proposals. Should we listen to Hansen who has always been at the "warmest" extreme and has a long record as being correct, or should we listen to "skeptics" with an equally long record of being wrong? Would you go to a doctor whose last 10 patients died due to neglegience or one whose last 10 patients were corrrectly treated?
    0 0
  37. Glenn, I don't understand your objection.

    S&C originally claimed that their satellite research showed that 'actual warming' was significantly less than indicated by the surface temperature records. This was heavily promoted as evidence against the AGW consensus and thus the sort of thing which might end up in this database. However, even S&C now concede that their analysis was wrong.

    Thus, if their original research were to be included in the database, as one of Lindzen's (similarly disproven and withdrawn) 'cloud iris' papers was, I'd think it both more accurate and indeed 'fair' to indicate that they subsequently corrected their mistakes. It certainly doesn't make sense to treat these things as 'currently active' objections to the AGW consensus given that even the authors no longer support them.
    0 0
  38. Friends of Science volunteers.
    Dr. Tim Patterson - Not included in WoS.
    Dr. Chris de Freitas - One peer-reviewed paper.
    Dr. Madhav Khandekar - No peer-reviewed papers.
    Not the international status Director Ken Gregory has been advertising.
    0 0
  39. Earlier, I took a look at two suggestions made above. 1) Compare the numbers of papers these skeptics have written that deny human-caused global warming or call it into question with the numbers for a mainstream climate scientist like Hansen, say. I did not find a way to make the comparison meaningful. I am not counting all the papers that Lindzen has written that are not directly about global warming, so what is the parallel for Hansen? If the point is how many total papers someone has written, it would be a rare scientist who has more than Lindzen.

    2) Take a look at the citations to see who cited the papers in these new databases. Again, I did not find this to be practical. One of Lindzen's papers has 300 cites. The citations for some others seem to be a mixed bag, with some cites from other skeptics on the list but also other cites by people who seem not to be skeptics.
    0 0
  40. Michael Sweet wrote: "Pielke Sr advocated using satelite data as the primary metric of AGW during this time, perhaps this relates to his current proposal to use ocean heat"

    Hi Michael. Do you have a link or citation for Pielke's advocacy of the satellite data? If he really claimed that should be taken as 'the primary metric' and has now switched to advocating for the 'top 700 meter OHC' it really seems like he is just latching on to any metric which doesn't show continuous warming IF you accept non statistically significant trends as valid.
    0 0
  41. Dr. Pielke Sr. proposed Moist enthalpy as the primary metric in Davey, Pielke, Gallo 2006, Global and Planetary Change:

    "Changes in heat content of the Earth's climate are not fully described by temperature alone. Moist enthalpy or, alternatively, equivalent temperature, is more sensitive to surface vegetation properties than is air temperature and therefore more accurately depicts surface heating trends."

    Now, of course, it's OHC.
    0 0
  42. @ adelady ... thanks for the pointer to the "Interactive History" ...
    0 0
  43. How sure are you that this list is accurate?

    Just looking at Dr. Ole Humlum. He is listed as having 0 peer reviewed papers which cast doubt on the AGW hypothesis.

    Found a list of his peer reviewed papers. He has 86 of them, according to this reference:

    I find something that looks like 'CO2 hypothesis' in several of them.

    Chris Shaker
    0 0
  44. 43, cjshaker,

    But not in any of the peer-reviewed papers.

    On the link you provided CO2 appears only in the section "Popular Papers" (whatever that means), "Interviews on TV and Radio" and "Lectures."

    Do you have some specific peer-reviewed papers that you feel should be looked at more closely?
    0 0
  45. cjshaker,

    No one is questioning what he thinks. The question is "has he published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic?"
    0 0

    [DB] This is a good time for Chris to demonstrate that he can uphold his end of a discussion rather than his wont of posting drive-by comments.

  46. 43 cjshaker: "He has 86 of them"

    Papers about 'rock glaciers' and terminal moraines have nothing to do with climate change, let alone CO2. Perhaps you can translate "Klima og CO2 - Uenighedens kerne"?

    His website isn't peer-reviewed and he's been debunked elsewhere. Use Search to find the correct thread.
    0 0
  47. Chris Shaker, Ole Humlum's been publishing for a great many years, often not specifically on climate, or specifically skeptical of it. If the article is not explicitly negative or doubtful of human-caused global warming, it's not icluded, so nearly all Humlum's papers don't count for this purpose.

    Recently he's become prominent in Norway as a skeptic, and regrettably he seems to have dropped his previously excellent science standards along the way. Humlum's most recent paper probably does count for the list; sadly it's a tragic case of regional curve-fitting climastrology that has little basis in science. That fits nicely with the list above.
    0 0
  48. Humlum has no papers in the WoS under Meteorology Atmospheric Sciences, the criterion that I used.
    0 0
  49. Just a reminder: we do have the total number of cites in the database, underneath the title of the paper.
    0 0
  50. We have posted Part 2--the “takeaways”--and I am working on Part 3, an analysis of these papers by argument and by year. Stay tuned.
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us