Lindzen & Choi (2011) - "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications"
Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science? (Master Resource, June 9, 2011)
When top scientists take 2 years to publish, it’s time to give up on old "Peer" review (JoNova, June 11, 2011)
PNAS Reviews: Preferential Standards for Kemp (Mann) et al (Climate Audit, June 22, 2011)
PNAS Submission Guidelines (PNAS)
"Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified reviewers."
Mclean et al. (2010) - "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"
Multiple Wrongs Don’t Make A Right on ENSO Impacts (WUWT, August 7, 2009)
Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply (John McLean, Chris R. de Freitas, Robert M. Carter, ICECAP, March 27, 2010)
How we were censored (Bob Carter and John McLean, Quadrant Magazine, March 29, 2010)
Censorship at AGU: Scientists Denied the Right of Reply (PDF) (John McLean, Chris R. de Freitas and Robert M. Carter, SPPI, March 30, 2010)
A response to Lewandowsky (John McLean, ABC Australia, April 1, 2010)
Soon & Baliunas (2003) - "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years"
Climategate Email 1057944829
A response from Chris de Freitas (Chris de Freitas, November 28, 2011)
Spencer & Braswell (2011) - "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance"
Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)
A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)
Comment On The Resignation of Wolfgang Wagner As Editor-In-Chief Of The Journal “Remote Sensing” In Response To The Publication Of Spencer And Braswell (2011) (Roger Pielke Sr., September 2, 2011)
Spencer’s Paper Reviewed; Remote Sensing Editor Wolfgang Wagner Resigns (William M. Briggs, September 3, 2011)
Journal Deliverance: The True Story of the Climate Hillbillies (WUWT, September 5, 2011)
More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us (Roy W. Spencer, September 5, 2011)
Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care (The Daily Telegraph, September 6, 2011)
The Warmists Strike Back (American Thinker, September 6, 2011)
255 NAS Letter - "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science"
- Alarmist Letter Signed by Non-Climate Scientists, Published with Fake Photo (Heartland Institute)
- NAS Signature Audit (PDF)
- Only 12% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences signed the letter
- Only 26.7% of the signatories work in areas related to climate
- The majority are life and medical scientists at 58.4%
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider 2010 - "Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF)
- Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS (Popular Technology)
- Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada)
- Global warming's Stephen Schneider: The Light That Failed (Environmental Policy Examiner)
- A New Blacklist (Roger A. Pielke Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Studies)
- Expert credibility in climate change? (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics)
- PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce (Doug L. Hoffman, Ph.D. Computer Science)
- The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
- The National Academy of Blacklists (Kenneth P. Green, D.Env. Environmental Science and Engineering)
"I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form." - Spencer Weart, Ph.D. Director, Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics (AIP) (1971-2009)
I will provide a simple demonstration that completely falsifies the bogus PNAS study. This will include using the bogus method not stated in the paper of arbitrarily adding in the middle initial of an author,
536 Results (Irrefutable evidence Google Scholar result totals are completely unreliable and cannot be used for scientific studies)
These results include the following,
The Pacific: Peace, Security, & The Nuclear Issue - Chapter 3. Militarization of the Pacific [Book] Author: Peter D. Jones
New Acquisitions 2008 African-American Masters Collection Author: Patrick D. Jones
Jesus Christ and the Transformation of English Society: The "Subversive Conservatism" of Frederick Denison Maurice Author: Paul Dafydd Jones
Distribution of the heart-leaf plantain, Plantago cordata Lamark, in Plum Run, Adams County, Ohio Author: Patricia D. Jones
This paper has been withdrawn for corrections (Not peer-reviewed)
Detection of greenhouse-gas-induced climatic change. Progress report, [Date] (Not peer-reviewed)
Since Google Scholar search results are cumulative this is elementary to prove and irrefutable,
"author:PD-Jones climate Militarization of the Pacific"
"author:pd-jones climate New Acquisitions 2008 African-American Masters Collection"
"author:PD-Jones climate Jesus Christ and the Transformation of English Society The "Subversive Conservatism" of Frederick Denison Maurice"
"author:PD-Jones climate Distribution of the heart-leaf plantain, Plantago cordata Lamark"
"author:PD-Jones climate "This paper has been withdrawn for corrections""
"allintitle:"progress report" author:PD-Jones climate"
Cook et al. (2013) - "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"
Out of 11,944 papers Cook et al. (2013) found,
1. 7950 papers (66.4%) expressed no position on AGW.
2. Only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).
Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (JoNova, May 17, 2013)
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (Popular Technology.net, May 21, 2013)
Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (The New American, May 21, 2013)
Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper (WUWT, May 23, 2013)
The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (Lord Monckton, WUWT, May 22, 2013)
UnderCooked Statistics (Climate Audit, May 24, 2013)
Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (Friends of Science, May 28, 2013)
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (Forbes, May 30, 2013)
The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (Popular Technology.net, June 1, 2013)
Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (Popular Technology.net, June 4, 2013)
Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (WUWT, June 4, 2013)
'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (Lord Monckton, WUWT, June 24, 2013)
97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (Lord Monckton, WUWT, September 9, 2013)
Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ’97% consensus’ (Lord Monckton, WUWT, September 20, 2013)
Doran and Zimmerman 2009 - "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF)
- Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (HTML)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist
- Further Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- John Helsdon
- 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey.
- 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change.
- Only 157 surveyed stated they are climate scientists.
- The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 cherry picked "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 scientists who participated in the survey. While 10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation.
- 190 scientists were excluded from the final results that produced a 97% figure because they did not indicate they were "climate scientists" even though more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change".
- You are not considered a "specialist" if you did not declare yourself a "climate scientist" even if more than 50% your peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.
- You are not considered a "specialist" even if more than 49% of your peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.
- You are not considered a "specialist" even if more that 50% of your peer-reviewed publications in the past 6 years have been on the subject of climate change.
75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming (National Post, Canada, December 30, 2010)
Harries et al. 2001 - "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
- A Smoking Pea-Shooter
- Interpretation Bias
- The AGW Smoking Gun
Mann et al. 2003 - "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth" (PDF)
- A response from Chris de Freitas (Watts Up With That?, November 28, 2011)
- Direct Action at Harvard (Climate Audit, November 28, 2011)
- Hide-the-Decline Plus (Climate Audit, December 1, 2011)
- Peer Review of Enhanced Hide-the-Decline (Climate Audit, December 2, 2011)
Marcott et al. 2013 - "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"
- We're not screwed? (Financial Post, April 2, 2013)
Meme 2010 - "On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record" (PDF)
- Professional Discourtesy By The National Climate Data Center On The Menne Et Al 2010 paper (Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.. January 15, 2010)
- Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated (Watts Up With That?, January 27, 2010)
Rahmstorf 2007 - "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections" (PDF)
- Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 595-596, August 2009)
- David R. B. Stockwell
- Rahmstorf Rejects IPCC Procedure (Climate Audit)
- Fishy odors surrounding Figure 3 from "The (Copenhagen) Synthesis Report" (The Blackboard, June 23, 2009)Instead of simply complying with standard IPCC procedures, Rahmstorf used a filter procedure described only in the AGU newspaper - the triangular filter properties of which were not described in the original article and indeed the authors say that they unaware of this defect at the time.
Rahmstorf changed smoothing policy not just once, but twice. First, in Rahmstorf 2007, he abandoned IPCC policy in favor of an article in the AGU newspaper; then he changed accounting parameters in the Copenhagen Report - all without explicitly stating that he had changed policy from the IPCC report and accompanying the change notice with an explicit accounting of the impact of the change.
Rahmstorf can no longer assert that observations are in the "upper" part of models, with the implication that things are "worse than we thought".
- Source of fishy odor confirmed: Rahmstorf did change smoothing (The Blackboard, June 29, 2009)
- Recent Climate Observations: Disagreement With Projections (Niche Modeling., June 29, 2009)
- More Fishy: How would you use Mannian Minimum Roughness to guess future data to "test" projections? (The Blackboard, June 30, 2009)
- Opportunism and the Models (Climate Audit, July 1, 2009)
- Rahmsmoothing and the Canadian GCM (Climate Audit, July 2, 2009)
- Rahmstorf 2007 Discredited (Niche Modeling., July 3, 2009)
- The Secret of the Rahmstorf "Non-Linear Trend Line" (Climate Audit, July 3, 2009)
- Rahm-Centering: Enhancing "Successful" Prediction (Climate Audit, July 7, 2009)
- Your Portfolio is "Better than You Thought" (Climate Audit, July 8, 2009)
Santer 2008 - "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere"
- The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
- David Douglass' Comments (Climate Audit, May 1st, 2008)
- Santer et al 2008 (Climate Audit, October 16th, 2008)
- Replicating Santer Tables 1 and 3 (Climate Audit, October 22th, 2008)
- Does the Endpoint of Santer H2 "Matter"? (Climate Audit, October 23th, 2008)
- Santer Method Applied Since Jan 2001: Average trend based on 38 IPPC AR4 models rejected (The Blackboard, October 23, 2008)
- This Gets Even More Amusing (Climate Audit, October 25th, 2008)
- Santer Refuses Data Request (Climate Audit, November 10th, 2008)
- Santer and the 4 NOAA Coauthors (Climate Audit, November 10th, 2008)
- Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology (Climate Audit, December 28th, 2008)
Smith 2008 - "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"
- Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith (PDF)
- Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Michael Zelger
Steig et al. 2009 - "Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year"
Breaking the ice (The Spectator, UK, February 19, 2011)In this Letter, we use statistical climate-field-reconstruction techniques to obtain a 50-year-long, spatially complete estimate of monthly Antarctic temperature anomalies. In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m temperature from occupied weather stations. Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica.
- Antarctica - digging out the data (Climate Audit)
- Antarctica warming? An evolution of viewpoint (Watts Up With That?, January 21, 2009)
- Antarctic Warming? Part 2 - A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica (Watts Up With That?, January 22, 2009)
- Steig's "Corrections" (Climate Audit, February 6, 2009)
- Redoing Steig et al, with simple data regrouping, gives half the warming result in Antarctica (Watts Up With That?, February 15, 2009)
- Steig 2009's Non-Correction for Serial Correlation (Climate Audit, February 26, 2009)
- O’Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009 (Climate Audit, December 2, 2010)
- Steig’s Trick (Climate Audit, February 7, 2011)
- Steig and the “KNUCKLEHEADED REVIEWERS” (Climate Audit, February 13, 2011)
- A Calmer Conversation with the Nail (The Air Vent, February 16, 2011)
- kgnd & Cross-Validation (The Air Vent, February 28, 2011)
- kgnd & Cross-Validation: PART II (The Air Vent, March 4, 2011)
- Antarctic Volcanoes
- UAH MSU Southern Polar Monthly Mean Lower-Troposphere Temperature Anomalies
- UAH MSU Southern Polar Monthly Mean Mid-Troposphere Temperature Anomalies
- Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
- "We must get rid of Antarctica" (Greenie Watch)
"I remain somewhat skeptical… It is hard to make data where none exist." - Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC lead author
"One must be very cautious with such results because they have no real way to be validated. In other words, we will never know what the temperature was over the very large missing areas that this technique attempts to fill in so that it can be tested back through time," - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science
"In terms of the significance of their paper, it overstates what they have obtained from their analysis. In the abstract they write, for example, 'West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1C per decade over the past 50 years.' However, even a cursory view of Figure 2 shows that since the late 1990s, the region has been cooling in their analysis in this region. The paper would be more balanced if they presented this result, even if they cannot explain why," - Roger A. Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science
- Climate scientists blow hot and cold (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology, The Guardian, UK)
- "Warming freezes the Southern Ocean" (PDF) (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician)
Australian Climate Commission 2011 - "The Critical Decade"
Australian Academy of Sciences 2010 - "The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers"
- Scientific audit of the Climate Commission Report (PDF) (14pgs) (Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth)
- The Critical Decade: Part I (Quandrant Online, May 30, 2011)
- The Critical Decade: Part II (Quandrant Online, May 30, 2011)
Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change - STATS 2007
12,000 Members - American Meteorological Society
58,000 Members - American Geophysical Union
70,000 Members Total
- Only 0.007% of the membership body were polled.
- Only 0.005% of the membership body believe human-induced warming is occurring
- Only 0.005% of the membership body agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence.