The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.
ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), “concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of 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 ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics.
The consensus is that all these papers are wrong. And how’d they find these 1,000+ papers? By cherry-picking, of course. A list like that won’t include research reaching opposing conclusions, so it’s biased, too. Doing research costs money, and with these results, you know exactly who paid for it. They probably also listen to Rush Limbaugh and drive SUVs. See? I’ve utterly demolished this effort without reading a single paper.
Eric, that is a strawman argument as the list is not claiming to be anything but peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments. Using your absurd argument a list that only includes papers that support AGW Alarm would be “cherry picked”. Therefore all lists advocating a certain position on anything would be “cherry picked”. You haven’t demolished anything but your rationality.
PT Eric was being facetious.
Fair enough, it is hard to tell without a [sarc] tag.
I’m going to quote Einstein on this. In response to a German book titled “A Hundred Authors Against Einstein”, lambasting the idea of relatively, he said quite simply, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough”.
Of course, the sword cuts both ways. As consensus does not prove, these thousand papers do no disprove.
One is enough.
Let me first start by saying that I am not a “scientist.” I have a difficult time believing that mankind has the ability to produce enough of anything to change the planet’s climate. Additionally, even if we were producing the volume of CO2 necessry to change the climate I doubt very much that we could undo the damage.
If AGW is taking place, the so called scientists have done a horrible job convincing people like me. Furthermore, there are more people like me, than there are so called scientist and we vote.
It appears in the last 10-15 years there has been no measureable warming. This also makes me disbelieve in AGW because CO2 has continued to rise. I understand that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, but NO warming?
Cheers.