In case you missed it, some hackers recently broke into the server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (THE leading British institute on climate change research) and then posted hundreds of private e-mails, and other papers online. The e-mails date back some 13 years, and afford a rare glimpse into the inner workings of scientific publishing and the peer-review process. Some of it gets quite nasty and personal towards climate skeptics and other researchers, and some of it suggests improper data manipulation to make global warming more convincing.

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the continuing fallout of shining some rough light onto the darker side of climate research.

Skeptics have been making the case for some time that there’s something amiss in the climate change debate. At the heart of it is the failure of a few leading scientists to maintain scientific integrity above all other considerations. There is something peculiar about climate change that makes some of us want/need to believe in something  despite contrary evidence or even lack of evidence.  That’s not science. It’s religion.

And thus certain leading climate scientists are finding themselves the butt of a growing body of climate change humor. So it goes.

I’ve always found politics unsettling. I believe it’s because politics is all too often the deliberate manipulation of peoples’  fears and ignorance within a largely fact free (or factually ambiguous) setting. This is where lesser cable news channels and most demagoging AM talk radio live. And where “death panels” are created out of thin air. Mostly right wing territory, right? Not so fast. Especially not when it comes to left leaning environmental politics.

Environmental politics is ripe with irony. What rational compassionate human being isn’t for a healthy environment? It’s inherently progressive, forward thinking, and imbued with the radiant light of righteous concern for the well being of this little blue ball we call home. So we tend to give environmental politics extra leeway because it’s…..well…..it’s a good thing, right? What self-respecting environmentalist would stoop to manipulating peoples’ fears and ignorance while feeding them one-sided information? Certainly not scientists! Right?

Unfortunately, even those with the most noble of intentions can be undermined by hubris, vanity, ego…..and some darker urgent need to overcome those ignorant non-believers on the right.  Not to mention the promise of a steady paycheck.  How else to explain this odd place we’ve arrived at today regarding man-made global warming where internationally sanctioned panels on climate change declare that “the science is settled” and that it’s time to act……except that the science is most definitely not settled, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding?

What is settled for the moment is that the “environmental politics” of man-made global warming has trumped climate change science itself. At least on the big international stage of the United Nation’s IPCC. The IPCC is set to meet in Copenhagen in December in hopes of hammering out a new international treaty on climate change. Son of Kyoto if you will. The vast majority of these decent, educated, well intended attendees will arrive in Copenhagen having drunk deeply of the cool aid quite confident in their convictions that humans are centrally at fault and that it’s time to create a global governmental body with the authority to impose its environmental will on the world’s governments. For the greater good of us all, of course.

The only antidote I know for this politicized distortion of  climate science is quality information. Lots of it. Quality information is easier said than done but it can be distilled out of the murky mists. Fortunately, our friend Andrew at Popular Technology has done the hard work for us. He’s compiled a list of 450 peer-reviewed papers (including links) that support a skeptical view of man-made global warming.

Do these papers represent the absolute truth on climate change and man’s role in it? I doubt it. And that’s the point isn’t it. Science is all about doubting, questioning, challenging and searching for rational truth. When science become politicized as it has in the climate change debate, science becomes dysfunctional and a false means of manipulation and influencing public policy. We all need to do a little less “believing” and a little more “knowing” before we act and let others act on our behalf. The science of global warming is not settled. Read. Read a lot! Know more. Believe less. Warming or cooling, it makes for a happier, safer and calmer world.

________________________________

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, “correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies”
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
– Craig Loehle

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- 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

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
– Heinz Hug

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney

Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski

Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas

Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey

- Response to comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007″ by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey

Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
– J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība

Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
– William Kininmonth

Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
– Adrian K. Kerton

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard

- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard

Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
– Tim F. Ball

Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
– Craig Loehle

Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos

Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Number 42, March 2007)
– Lance Endersbee

Climate change projections lack reality check
(Weather, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp. 212, December 2006)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Climate Change Re-examined (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman

Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical Background
(Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)
– Raymond Sneyers

Climate Dynamics and Global Change
(Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pg 353-378, January 1994)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Climate outlook to 2030 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 615-619, September 2007)
– David C. Archibald

Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Number 12, pp. 2743-2746, December 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
– Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

Climate science and the phlogiston theory: weighing the evidence (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 3-4, pp. 441-447, July 2007)
– Arthur Rörsch

Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
(Civil Engineering, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp. 66-72, May 2007)
– David Bellamy, Jack Barrett

Climate Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect
(Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)
– Wibjörn Karlén

CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate: Comment (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp. 18–18, July 2004)
– Nir Shaviv, Jan Veizer

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
– G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
– Roland Granqvist

Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, pp. 4276–4293, September 2006)
– H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer

Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
– Craig Loehle

Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– Robert M. Carter

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186, January 2001)
– John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

Distribution of Tropical Tropospheric Water Vapor (PDF)
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 12, pp. 1643-1660, June 1993)
– De-Zheng Sun, Richard S. Lindzen

Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Do Facts Matter Anymore?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 323-326, May 2003)
– Patrick J. Michaels

Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? (PDF)
(Science of the Total Environment, Volume 114, pp. 227-284, August 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, N. Ono

Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 88, Number 6, pp. 913-928, June 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF)
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
– Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp 44-46, May 2001)
– Robert H. Essenhigh

Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– Craig D. Idso

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)
– Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

Evidence Delimiting Past Global Climate Changes
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 151, September 1999)
– John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjörn Karlén

Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
(Nature, Volume 408, Issue 6813, pp. 698-701, December 2000)
– Ján Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François

Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 2, July 2002)
– R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Global Warming (PDF)
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 448-455, September 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Global Warming: A Reduced Threat? (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
– Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury

Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
(Environmental Geology, Volume 46, Numbers 6-7, pp. 970-979, October 2004)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

Global Warming and the Accumulation of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 101-126, January 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes

Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman

Global Warming: Correcting the Data (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 31, Number 3, pp.46-52, 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Global Warming: Is Sanity Returning?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 721-731, September 2009)
– Nigel Lawson

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– Marcel Leroux

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 87-98, 1992)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
– D. J. Keenan

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
– Ferenc M. Miskolczi

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
(Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September 2009)
– G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 6, pp. 1037-1045, November 2005)
– Jack Barrett

How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for Global Warming Theory (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp. 1097–1106, June 1997)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Human effect on global climate?
(Nature, Volume 384, Issue 6609, pp. 522-523, December 1996)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)
– S. Fred Singer

Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 423, Number 6939, pp. 528-531, May 2003)
– Eugenia Kalnay, Ming Cai

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)
– Willie H. Soon

In defense of Milankovitch (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 24, December 2006)
– Gerard Roe

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 5, March 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
– John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

- Correction to “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)
– John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

- Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
– David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 367-373, July 2009)
– J. Huston McCulloch

Is the enhancement of global warming important?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 335-341, July 2001)
– M.C.R. Symons, Jack Barrett

Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503, July 2004)
– Ya. K. Kondratyev

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 4, February 2006)
– John R. Christy, W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 4, April 2005)
– Christopher A. Davey, Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 259–275, November 2001)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 187–188, September 2002)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 93–94, June 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 95, January 2007)
– Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian

Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 45–53, July 2001)
– Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 18, pp. 2905–2908, September 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, May 2003)
– Landscheidt T.

Observed warming in cold anticyclones (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 1–6, January 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling Jr, Robert E. Davis

Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
(Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, pp. 3296-3300, August 2009)
– David H. Douglass, Robert S. Knox

Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Numbers 2-3, pp. 333-342, February 2009)
– G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh

On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 260-268, September 2007)
– Olavi Kamer

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, pp. 899-910, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

- Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, pp. 1567-1572, June 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue D20, October 2002)
– Olavi Kamer

On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 671-684, August 2008)
– D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

On the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration and on water vapour feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 603-607, July 2006)
– Jack Barrett, David Bellamy, Heinz Hug

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming (PDF)
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems (PDF)
(Technology, Volume 7S, pp. 189-213, 2000)
– Indur M. Goklany

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
(Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)
– Robert H. Essenhigh

Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April 2002)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

- Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June 2008)
– L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, Volume 2, pp. 3-11, February 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 89–110, January 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes (PDF)
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75, June 1999)
– John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjörn Karlén

Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
– Fred Goldberg

Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity
(Ambio, Volume 37, Number sp14, pp. 483–488, November 2008)
– Wibjörn Karlén

Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 595-596, August 2009)
– David R. B. Stockwell

Recent Global Warming: An Artifact of a Too-Short Temperature Record? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 34, Number 3, pp. 263–264, May 2005)
– Wibjörn Karlén

Review and impacts of climate change uncertainties
(Futures, Volume 25, Number 8, pp. 850-863, 1993)
– M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South

Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, 2002)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Science, Equity, and the War against Carbon
(Science, Technology & Human Values, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 69-92, 2003)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF)
(Social Studies of Science, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 895-922, December 2005)
– Myanna Lahsen

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system (PDF)
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner

Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121, January 2009)
– Tom Quirk

Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer

Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes
(Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp. 3342–335, June 2009)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Richard T. McNider

Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray

Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner

Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 15-18, June 2003)
– David H. Douglass, B. David Clader, John R. Christy, Patrick J. Michaels, David A. Belsley

The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder

The cause of global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 2000)
– Vincent Gray

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 30, Number 2, pp.16-22, 2007)
– Stanley W. Trimble

The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan

The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (PDF)
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)
Madhav L. Khandekar, TS Murty, P Chittibabu

The greenhouse effect and global change: review and reappraisal
(International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 36, Numbers 1-2, pp. 55-71, July 1990)
– Patrick J. Michaels

The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003)
– Hans Jelbring

The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney, Dick Thoenes

The Letter Science Magazine Rejected
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
– Benny Peiser

The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth’s troposphere
(Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume 51, Issue 3, Pages 415-417, March 1995)
– Jack Barrett

The value of climate forecasting
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 7, Number 3, June 1985)
– Garth W. Paltridge

The Way of Warming (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 23, Number 3, 2000)
– Patrick J. Michaels

“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 3, Number 4, pp. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard

Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, October 2009)
– Craig Loehle

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-359, February 2009)
– Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D6, March 2007)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo

Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

- Reply to comment by David E. Parker et al. on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends” (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D5, March 2009)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. 470-479, March 2008)
– Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey

Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making (PDF)
(International Journal of Forecasting, doi:10.1016, May 2009)
– Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 6, March 2004)
– John R. Christy, William B. Norris

When Was The Hottest Summer? A State Climatologist Struggles for an Answer
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp. 723-734, May 2002)
– John R. Christy

An Inconvenient Truth:

An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 15-19, September 2007)
– David R. Legates

An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction
(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, pp. 11-14, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer

Antarctica:

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)
– Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell

Active volcanism beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet and implications for ice-sheet stability
(Nature, Volume 361, Number 6412, p. 526-529, February 1993)
– Donald D. Blankenship et al.

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 18, September 2009)
– Marco Tedesco, Andrew J. Monaghan

Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
(Nature, Volume 415, Number 6871, pp. 517-520, January 2002)
– Peter T. Doran et al.

First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat
(Geology, Volume 29, Number 9, pp. 787-790, September 2001)
– Carol J. Pudsey, Jeffrey Evans

Orbitally induced oscillations in the East Antarctic ice sheet at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary
(Nature, Volume 413, Number 6857, pp. 719-723 , October 2001)
– Tim R. Naish et al.

Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(Science, Volume 286. Number 5438, pp. 280-283, October 1999)
– H. Conway, B. L. Hall, G. H. Denton, A. M. Gades, E. D. Waddington

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
(Science, Volume 308, Number 5730, pp. 1898-1901, June 2005)
– Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna

Arctic:

Actual and insolation-weighted Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice between 1973–2002
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 22, Issue 6-7, pp. 591-595, June 2004)
– Roger A. Pielke Sr., G. Liston, W. Chapman, D. Robinson

Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs Reflect Present Climate Conditions
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 40, pp. 410-412, 2003)
– James E. Overland, Kevin Wood

Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp. 1039-1042, March 2001)
– P. Winsor

Has Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinned? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 13, pp.1691-1701, July 2002)
– Greg Holloway,Tessa Sou

Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue C1, January 2006)
– Dmitry V. Divine, Chad Dick

Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea
(Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 45, Number 11, pp. 1377-1397, November 2008)
– J.L. McKay et al.

Sea-ice decline due to more than warming alone
(Nature, Volume 450, Issue 7166, pp. 27, November 2007)
– Julia Slingo, Rowan Sutton

Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
– Willie H. Soon

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 16, August 2005)
– Willie H. Soon

Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent
(Geophyscial Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 9, May 2004)
– Ignatius G. Rigor, John M. Wallace

Clouds:

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 15, August 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417-432, March 2001)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou

- Comment on “No Evidence for Iris” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 9, pp. 1345–1349, September 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou

- Reply to: “Tropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth infrared iris feedback?” (PDF)
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 99-101, May 2002)
– Ming-Dah Chou, Richard S. Lindzen, Arthur Y. Hou

- Comments on “The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?” (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 18, September 2002)
– Ming-Dah Chou, Richard S. Lindzen, Arthur Y. Hou

- Reply to Comment on “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp. 598-600, April, 2002)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou

Radiative effect of cirrus with different optical properties over the tropics in MODIS and CERES observations (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 21, November 2006)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho

Validation of the cloud property retrievals from the MTSAT-1R imagery using MODIS observations (PDF)
(International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2009)
– Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho

CO2 lags Temperature changes:

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
(Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
– Bärbel Hönisch, N. Gary Hemming, David Archer, Mark Siddall, Jerry F. McManus

“The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition.”

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 5, March 2000)
– Andreas Inderm¨uhle, Eric Monnin, Bernhard Stauer, Thomas F. Stocker

“The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.”

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Volume 291. Number 5501, January 2001)
– Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola

“The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
– Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

“High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, Volume 318, Issue 5849, September 2007)
– Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell

“Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.”

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka (PDF)
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 583-589, February 2001)
– Manfred Mudelsee

“Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka”

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science, Volume 299, Number 5613, March 2003)
– Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov

“The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

Coral Reefs:

A critique of a method to determine long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 783-796, November 2007)
– Peter V. Ridd

Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing (PDF)
(Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp. 503-515, March 2008)
– Zoe T. Richardsa, Maria Begerd, Silvia Pincae, Carden C. Wallace

Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 22, November 2004)
– Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, David J. Barnes

- Reply to comment by Kleypas et al. on “Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 8, April 2005)
– Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, David J. Barnes

Reef corals bleach to survive change
(Nature, Volume 411, Issue 6839, pp. 765-766, June 2001)
– Andrew C. Baker

Deaths:

Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States (PDF)
(Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 14, pp. 1712-1718, November 2003)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff

Cold—an underrated risk factor for health
(Environmental Research, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp. 8-13, May 2003)
– James B. Mercer

Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels

Global Health Threats: Global Warming in Perspective (PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 69-75, 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany

Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study
(British Medical Journal, Volume 321, Number 7262, pp. 670-673, September 2000)
– W. R. Keatinge et al.

Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004)
– Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels,
Wendy M. Novicoff

Temperature-related mortality in France, a comparison between regions with different climates from the perspective of global warming
(International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 51, Number 2, November 2006)
– Mohamed Laaidi, Karine Laaidi, Jean-Pierre Besancenot

U.S. Trends in Crude Death Rates Due to Extreme Heat and Cold Ascribed to Weather, 1979-97
(Technology, Volume 7S, pp. 165-173, 2000)
– Indur M. Goklany, Sorin R. Straja

Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 23, December 2006)
– Thomas N. Chase, Klaus Wolter, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Ichtiaque Rasool

Floods:

Claim of Largest Flood on Record Proves False
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Number 12, pp. 109-109, 2003)
– N. A. Sheffer et al.

Floods, droughts and climate change
(South African Journal of Science, Volume 91, Number 8, pp. 403-408, August 1995)
– W.J.R. Alexander

Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp.437-442, March 2000)
– Stanley A. Changnon, Roger A. Pielke Jr., David Changnon, Richard T. Sylves, Roger Pulwarty

Nine Fallacies of Floods (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 42, Number 2, June 1999)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.

No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe
(Nature, Volume 425, Issue 6954, pp. 166-169, September 2003)
– Manfred Mudelsee, Michael Börngen, Gerd Tetzlaff, Uwe Grünewald

Palaeoclimatic and archaeological evidence for a 200-yr recurrence of floods and droughts linking California, Mesoamerica and South America over the past 2000 years
(Holocene, Volume 13, Number 5, pp. 763-778, 2003)
– Amdt Schimmelmann, Carina B. Lange, Betty J. Meggers

Glaciers:

Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 16, August 2006)
– Nicolas J. Cullen et al.

Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate Change: Observations and Fact (PDF)
(International journal of climatology, Volume 24, Number 3, pp. 329-339, March 2004)
– Georg Kaser et al.

Recent glacier advances in Norway and New Zealand: A comparison of their glaciological and meteorological causes
(Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp. 141-157, March 2005)
– T. Chinn et al.

The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
(American Scientist, Volume 95, Number 4, pp. 318-325, July 2007)
– PW Mote, G Kaser

Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D9, May 2007)
– C. Vincent, E. Le Meur, D. Six, M. Funk, M. Hoelzle, S. Preunkert

Greenland:

Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 63, Numbers 1-2, pp. 201-221, March 2004)
– Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box, Glen Lesins

Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 11, June 2006)
– Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins

Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
(Science, Volume 315, Number 5818, pp. 1559-1561, March 2007)
– Ian M. Howat, Ian Joughin, Ted A. Scambos

Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 32-1, February 2003)
– Edward Hanna, John Cappelen

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
– Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev

Gulf Stream:

Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns
(Nature, Volume 428, Issue 6983, April 2004)
– Carl Wunsch

Hockey Stick: (MBH98)

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

“Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape”

- Reply to comment by Huybers on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 433, Issue 7026, pp. 613-617, February 2005)
– Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Comment on “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years”
(Science, Volume 316, Number 5833, pp. 1844, June 2007)
– Gerd Bürger

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
– David Holland

A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 94, Numbers 3-4, pp. 233-245, June 2008)
– C. Loehle

Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Number 6, February 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hurricanes:

Are there trends in hurricane destruction? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11, December 2005)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 313, Number 5786, pp. 452-454, July 2006)
– Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff

Causes of the Unusually Destructive 2004 Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 87, Issue 10, October 2006)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray

Comments on “Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme”
(Journal of Climate, Volume 18, Issue 23, December 2005)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Landsea

Counting Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Back to 1900 (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 88, Number 18, pp. 197, May 2007)
– Christopher W. Landsea

Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2005)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch

- Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming—Potential Linkages and Consequences” (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 87, Issue 5, May 2006)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch

Hurricanes and Global Warming (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11-E12, December 2005)
– Christopher W. Landsea

Landscape and Regional Impacts of Hurricanes in New England
(Ecological Monographs, Volume 71, Number 1, pp. 27-48, February 2001)
– Emery R. Boose, Kristen E. Chamberlin, David R. Foster

Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925–95 (PDF)
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 13, Issue 3, September 1998)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea

Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005 (PDF)
(Natural Hazards, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42, February 2008)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Joel Gratz, Christopher W. Landsea, Douglas Collins, Mark A. Saunders, Rade Musulin6

Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 9, May 2006)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert E. Davis

Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 1, Number 6, pp. 359-364, June 2008)
– Thomas R. Knutson et al.

Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986–2005) (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 11, May 2006)
– Philip J. Klotzbach

Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment (PDF)
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 79, Issue 1, January 1998)
– A. Henderson-Sellers, H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Holland, J. Lighthill, S.-L. Shieh, P. Webster, K. McGuffie

Malaria:

Climate Change and Mosquito-Borne Disease (PDF)
(Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Supplement 1, March 2001)
– Paul Reiter

From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Emerging Infectious Diseases, Volume 6, Number 1, January–February 2000)
– Paul Reiter

Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy
(Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp. 323-324, June 2004)
– Paul Reiter, C. Thomas, P. Atkinson, S. Hay, S. Randolph, D. Rogers, G. Shanks, R. Snow, A. Spielman

Global warming and malaria: knowing the horse before hitching the cart
(Malaria Journal, Volume 7, Supplement 1, December 2008)
– Paul Reiter

Malaria and Global Warming in Perspective? (PDF)
(Emerging Infectious Diseases, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 438-9. July-August 2000)
– Paul Reiter

Medieval Warming Period – Little Ice Age:

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 39, Number 1, pp.127-132, June 2004)
– P.A Mayewski et al.

Caribbean sea surface temperatures: Two‐to‐three degrees cooler than present during the Little Ice Age
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 20, pp. 3365-3368, Octonber 2000)
– Amos Winter, Hiroshi Ishioroshi, Tsuyoshi Watanabe, Tadamichi Oba, John R. Christy

Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period
(Science, Volume 288, Number 5474, pp. 2198-2202, June 2000)
– Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein

Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 14, pp. 1-4, July 2002)
– E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D’Arrigo

Evidence for a warmer period during the 12th and 13th centuries AD from chironomid assemblages in Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada
(Quaternary Research, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 27-37, July 2009)
– Nicolas Rolland et al.

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 289-297, March 1994)
– De’Er Zhang

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 143-169, March 1994)
– Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur

Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)
(Paleoceanography, Volume 18, Number 2, June 2003)
– Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
(Science, Volume 295, Number 5563, pp. 2250-2253, March 2002)
– Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, pp. 113-125, July 2004)
– K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 36, Issues 1-2, pp. 17-29, March 2003)
– T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates

“Many records reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.”

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Volume 274, Number 5292, pp. 1503-1508, November 29, 1996)
– Lloyd D. Keigwin

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
(South African Journal of Science, Volume 96, Number 3, pp. 121-126, 2000)
– P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss

The Little Ice Age as Recorded in the Stratigraphy of the Tropical Quelccaya Ice Cap
(Science, Volume 234, Number 4774, pp. 361-364, October 1986)
– L.G. Thompson, E. Mosley-Thompson, W. Dansgaard, P.M. Grootes

The ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China
(Holocene, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 511-516, 2002)
– Guoqiang Chu, Jiaqi Liu, Qing Sun, Houyuan Lu, Zhaoyan Gu, Wenyuan Wang, Tungsheng Liu

The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
(Journal of Lake Sciences, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 209-216, September 2002)
– Z. Jin, J. Shen, S. Wang, E. Zhang

Time scales and trends in the central England temperature data (1659–1990): A wavelet analysis
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp. 1351-1354, June 1997)
– Sallie Baliunas, Peter Frick, Dmitry Sokoloff, Willie Soon

Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8, December 2008)
– Håkan Grudd

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March 1994)
– Ricardo Villalba

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
– Wallace S. Broecker

“The Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming were global in extent. Several Holocene fluctuations in snowline, comparable in magnitude to that of the post-Little Ice Age warming, occurred in the Swiss Alps. Borehole records both in polar ice and in wells from all continents suggest the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. Finally, two multidecade-duration droughts plagued the western United States during the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period. I consider this evidence sufficiently convincing to merit an intensification of studies aimed at elucidating Holocene climate fluctuations, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.”

Ocean Acidification:

Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Issue 23, pp. 9316-9321, June 2009)
– Rebecca A. Gooding, Christopher D. G. Harley, Emily Tang

Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Number 10, May 2006)
– Hugo A. Loáiciga

“This paper’s results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”

Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World
(Science, Volume 320, Number 5874, pp. 336-340, April 2008)
– M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.

Permafrost:

Ancient Permafrost and a Future, Warmer Arctic
(Science, Volume 321, Number 5896, pp. 1648, September 2008)
– Duane G. Froese, John A. Westgate, Alberto V. Reyes, Randolph J. Enkin, Shari J. Preece

“We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.”

Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 9, May 2007)
– G. Delisle

“Based on paleoclimatic data and in consequence of this study, it is suggested that scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable.”

Polar Bears:

Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? (PDF)
(Ecological Complexity, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 73-84, September 2007)
– M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock

- Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)
(Ecological Complexity, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp. 289-302, December 2008)
– M.G. Dyck, W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock

Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (PDF)
(Interfaces, Volume 75, April 2008)
– J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, Willie H. Soon

Sea Level:

Estimating future sea level changes from past records (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner

- Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on “Estimating future sea level changes from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner (2004)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 62, Issues 3-4, Pages 219-220, June 2008)
– Nils-Axel Mörner

Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 57, Issues 3-4, pp. 396-406, June 2007)
– G. Wöppelmann, B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, Z. Altamimi

Global Warming and Sea Level Rise (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1067-1074, 2009)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

New perspectives for the future of the Maldives (PDF)
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, pp. 177-182, January 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert

- Reply to the comment of P.S. Kench et al. on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by N.A. Morner et al.
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp. 70-71, February 2005)
– Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise
(Science, Volume 308, Number 5730, pp. 1898-1901, June 2005)
– Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna)

Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis, Environmental Stress and Migration Overseas: The Case of the Maldives and Sri Lanka (PDF)
(International Quarterly for Asian Studies, Volume 38, Number 3–4, pp. 353–374, November 2007)
– Nils-Axel Mörner

The Maldives project: a future free from sea-level flooding
(Contemporary South Asia, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149-155, June 2004)
– Nils-Axel Mörner

Species Extinctions:

Dangers of crying wolf over risk of extinctions
(Nature, Volume 428, Issue 6985, pp. 799, April 2004)
– Richard J. Ladle, Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo & Robert J. Whittaker

Riding the Wave: Reconciling the Roles of Disease and Climate Change in Amphibian Declines
(PLoS Biology, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 441-454, March 2008)
– Karen R. Lips, Jay Diffendorfer, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Michael W. Sears

Storms:

Changes in Global Monsoon Circulations Since 1950
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 229-254, June 2003)
– T. N. Chase, J. A. Knaff, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay

Changing storminess? An analysis of long-term sea level data sets (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 11, Number 2, pp. 161-172, March 1999)
– W. Bijl, R. Flather, J. G. de Ronde, T. Schmith

Characteristics of long-duration precipitation events across the United States
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 22, November 2007)
– David M. Brommer, Randall S. Cerveny, Robert C. Balling Jr.

Climate change and extratropical storminess in the United States: An assessment?
(Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 1387-1398, December 1999)
– Bruce P. Hayden

Comment on WMO Statement on Extreme Weather Events
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 41, pp. 428-428 , February 2003)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Compilation and Discussion of Trends in Severe Storms in the United States: Popular Perception v. Climate Reality
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 103-112, June 2003)
– Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny

Extreme Weather Trends Vs. Dangerous Climate Change: A Need for Critical Reassessment
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 327-332, March 2005)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

Indian Monsoon Variability in a Global Warming Scenario
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 189-206, June 2003)
– R. H. Kripalani, Ashwini Kulkarni, S. S. Sabade, M. L Khandekar

North American Trends in Extreme Precipitation
(Natural Hazards, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 291-305, June, 2003)
– Kenneth E. Kunkel

Scandinavian storminess since about 1800
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 20, October 2004)
– Lars Bärring, Hans von Storch

Seasonal, interannual, and decadal variability of storm surges at Tauranga, New Zealand
(New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Volume 34, Number 3, pp. 419-434, September 2000)
– W. P. De Lange, J. G. Gibb

Surges, atmospheric pressure and wind change and flooding probability on the Atlantic coast of France
(Oceanologica Acta, Volume 23, Number 6, pp. 643-661, November 2000)
– P.A. Pirazzoli

Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA?
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 24, Number 15, pp. 1873-1882, December 2004)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Twentieth-Century Storm Activity along the U.S. East Coast (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp. 1748-1761, May 2000)
– Keqi Zhang, Bruce C. Douglas, Stephen P. Leatherman

Tornadoes:

Normalized Damage from Major Tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999 (PDF)
(Weather and Forecasting, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 168-176, February 2001)
– Harold E. Brooks, Charles A. Doswell III

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
(Science, Volume 278, Number 5341, pp. 1257-1266, November 1997)
– Gerard Bond et al.

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5546, pp. 1431-1433, November 2001)
– Richard A. Kerr

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
– Feng Sheng Hu et al.

Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 34, Issues 3-4, pp. 313-325, November 2002)
– W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad

Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, Volume 26, Number 5, pp. 471-473, May 1998)
– Ian D. Campbell et al.

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
(Nature, Volume 438, Issue 70695, pp. 208-211, November 2005)
– Holger Braun et al.

The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 8, pp. 3814-3819, April 2000)
– Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf

The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records (PDF)
(Climate of the Past, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.679-692, 2007)
– M. Debret et al.

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp. 17-1, May 2003)
– Stefan Rahmstorf

Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period
(Science, Volume 291, Issue 5501, pp. 109-112, January 2001)
– Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
(Geology, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp. 455-458, May 2002)
– André E. Viau et al.

Cosmic Rays:

Solar variability influences on weather and climate: Possible connections through cosmic ray fluxes and storm intensification
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 94, Number D12, pp. 14783-14792, October 1989)
– Brian A, Tinsley, Geoffrey M. Brown, Philip H. Scherrer

Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles
(Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996)
– H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri

Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 59, Number 11, pp. 1225-1232, July 1997)
– Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

- Reply to comments on “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships” (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp. 79-80, January 2000)
– Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030, November 1998)
– Henrik Svensmark

Cosmic rays and Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 93, Numbers 1-2, pp. 175-185, July 2000)
– Henrik Svensmark

Cosmic rays and climate: The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp. 4.18-4.22, August 2000)
– E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2, pp. 215-230, November 2000)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 85, Issue 23, pp. 5004-5007, December 2000)
– Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 8, pp. 1527–1530, April 2001)
– Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 107, Issue A7, pp. SIA 8-1, July 2002)
– Fangqun Yu

Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 5, July 2002)
– Nir J. Shaviv

The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth
(New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv

Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number D6, pp. AAC 6-1, March 2003)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Solar Influence on Earth’s Climate
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 107, Numbers 1-2, pp. 317-325, April 2003)
– Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Toward a solution to the early faint Sun paradox: A lower cosmic ray flux from a stronger solar wind (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 108, Number A12, pp. SSH 3-1, December 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv

Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 16, August 2004)
– I.G. Usoskin, N.Marsh, G.A. Kovaltsov, K.Mursula, O.G. Gladysheva

The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate
(Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 6, Number 5, October 2004)
– V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp.1037-1062, November 2004)
– F. Yu

Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp. 484-490, May 2005)
– S.V. Veretenenko, , V.A. Dergachev, P.B. Dmitriyev

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A8, August 2005)
– Nir J. Shaviv

Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 871, 2006)
– Henrik Svensmark

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 462, Issue 2068, pp. 1221-1233, April 2006)
– R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson

Interstellar-Terrestrial Relations: Variable Cosmic Environments, The Dynamic Heliosphere, and Their Imprints on Terrestrial Archives and Climate
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 127, Numbers 1-4, December 2006)
– K. Scherer, H. Fichtner, T. Borrmann, J. Beer, L. Desorgher, E. Flükiger, H. Fahr, S. Ferreira, U. Langner, M. Potgieter, B. Heber, J. Masarik, N. Shaviv, J. Veizer

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
– Henrik Svensmark

Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 353-364, February 2007)
– Charles A. Perrya

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 463, Number 2078, p 385-396, February 2007)
– Henrik Svensmark et al.

200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
– O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev

On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July 2007)
– M. G. Ogurtsov

Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 441-450, July 2008)
– Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb

Cosmic Rays and Climate
(Surveys in Geophysics, Volume 28, Numbers 5-6, November 2007)
– Jasper Kirkby

Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux
(International Journal of Global Warming, Volume 1, Numbers 1-2, pp. 57-65, July 2009)
– Reis, A. Heitor, Serrano, Claudia

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 15, August 2009)
– Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark

A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings
(New Phytologist, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp. 545-551, September 2009)
– Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby and John Grace

Solar:

80–120 yr Long-term solar induced effects on the earth, past and predictions
(Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Volume 31, Issues 1-3, pp. 113-122, 2006)
– Shahinaz Moustafa Yousef

A decadal solar effect in the tropics in July–August (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 66, Issue 18, pp. 1767-1778, December 2004)
– Harry van Loona, Gerald A. Meehlb, Julie M. Arblaster

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 23, December 2005)
– Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

A new pathway for communicating the 11-year solar cycle signal to the QBO
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 18, September 2005)
– Eugene C. Cordero, Terrence R. Nathan

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
(Science, Volume 325, Number 5944, pp. 1114-1118, August 2009)
– Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Katja Matthes, Fabrizio Sassi, Harry van Loon

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle (PDF)
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
– Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
– Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Century-scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 15, August 2004)
– Gregory C. Wiles et al.

Climate cyclicity in late Holocene anoxic marine sediments from the Seymour-Belize Inlet Complex (PDF)
(Marine Geology, Volume 242, Issues 1-3, pp. 123-140, August 2007)
– R. Timothy Patterson, Andreas Prokoph, Eduard Reinhardt, Helen M. Roe

Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 359-362, February 1996)
– Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul

Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (PDF)
(Science, Volume 301, Number 5641, pp. 1890-1893, September 2003)
– Feng Sheng Hu et al.

Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
– Oliver K. Manuel

Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium in the Solar Irradiance (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 85-95, January 2009)
– Martin Hertzberg

Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 109, Issue D21, November 2004)
– K. Coughlin, K. K. Tung

Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe (PDF)
(Comptes Rendus Geosciences, Volume 340, Issue 7, pp. 421-430, July 2008)
– Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman

Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, pp. 403-417, February 2002)
– M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 23, pp. 12433-12438, November 2000)
– Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu

Global Temperature Forced by Solar Irradiation and Greenhouse Gases? (PDF)
(Ambio, Volume 30, Number 6, pp. 349-350, September 2001)
– Wibjörn Karlén

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007)
– Joan Feynmana

Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Astronomical Notes, Volume 327, Issue 9, pp. 866-870, October 2006)
– Henrik Svensmark

Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880–1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection (PDF)
(Astrophysical Journal, Volume 472, pp. 891, December 1996)
– Willie H. Soon, Eric S. Posmentier, Sallie L. Baliunas

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue D21, November 2006)
– Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Volume 254, Number 5032, pp. 698-700, November 1991)
– E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen

Linkages Between Solar Activity and Climatic Responses
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 239-254, March 2005)
– William J.R. Alexander et al.

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Volume 49, Number 2, pp. 32–44, June 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse

Long-Period Cycles of the Sun’s Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December 2002)
– M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner

Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940′s (PDF)
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 91, Issue 21, November 2003)
– Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko

On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia
(The Holocene, Volume 6, Number 3, pp. 359-365, 1996)
– Wibjörn Karlén, Johan Kuylenstierna

Once again about global warming and solar activity (PDF)
(Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society, Volume 76, pp. 969, 2005)
– K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, B. Kirov

Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanogrpahy, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 441–456, 1999)
– A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 181-204, 1999)
– Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Volume 294, Number 5549, pp. 2130-2136, December 2001)
– Gerard Bond et al.

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 5, March 2006)
– N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 17, September 2006)
– N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Possible geomagnetic activity effects on weather
(Annales Geophysicae, Volume 17, Number 7, pp. 925-932, July 1999)
– J. Bochníček, P. Hejda1, V. Bucha, J. Pýcha

Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains
(Geology, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999)
– Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito

Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1167-1172, 2007)
– O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin

Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (PDF)
(Journal of Coastal Research, Issue 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
– Richard Mackey

Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy The International Journal, Volume 18, Number 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993)
– Friis-Christensen, Eigil

Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994)
(Planetary and Space Science, Volume 55, Issues 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007)
– Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa et al.

Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp. 901-915, May 2002)
– Ronald E. Thresher

Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 1, pp. 29-35, January 2006)
– David C. Archibald

Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Volume 284, Number 5412, pp. 305-308, April 1999)
– Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan

Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate (PDF)
(The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, pp. 181-184, August 2008)
– Adriano Mazzarella

Solar Forcing of Climate. 1: Solar Variability
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 197-241, October 2005)
– C. De Jager

Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the Past
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 120, Numbers 3-4, pp. 243-286, October 2005)
– Gerard J. M. Versteegh

Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands
(Science, Volume 292, Number 5520, pp. 1367-1370, May 2001)
– David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson

Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere (PDF)
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp. 147-154, 2005)
– Andrew Mayewski et al.

Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp. 24-1, February 2003)
– Kunihiko Kodera

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, Number D2, pp. 2835–2844, February 1991)
– George C. Reid

Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, January 1998)
– E.W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman

Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees
(Il Nuovo Cimento C, Volume 19, Number 4, July 1996)
– S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni, L. Ruggiero

Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (PDF)
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, December 2006)
– J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth’s temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 8, April 2007)
– H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Sun-Climate Linkage Now Confirmed
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 123-130, January 2009)
– Adriano Mazzarella

Sunspots, the QBO, and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar region
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 535-537, May 1987)
– Karin Labitzke

Sunspots, the QBO and the stratosphere in the North Polar Region – 20 years later
(Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 355-363, June 2006)
– Karin Labitzke et al.

Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratosphere in the North Polar Region: An Update
(Advances in Global Change Research, Volume 33, pp. 347-357, 2007)
– Karin Labitzke et al.

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate (PDF)
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
– Oliver K. Manuel, Barry W. Ninham, Stig E. Friberg

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 14, July 2007)
– Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, March 2007)
– Adriano Mazzarella

The influence of the 11 yr solar cycle on the interannual–centennial climate variability
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 67, Issues 8-9, pp. 793-805 ,May-June 2005)
– Hengyi Weng

The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late-Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex
(Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp. 1267–1283, April 2007)
– Charles D. Camp, Ka-Kit Tung

The link between the solar dynamo and climate – The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, Volume 21, Number 3-4, pp. 251-254, September 1994)
– C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston

The signal of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 80, Numbers 3-4, pp. 393-410, May 1997)
– K. Labitzke, H. van Loon

The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2, pp. 625-637, January 2001)
– T.I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P.J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood

The Sun’s Role in Regulating the Earth’s Climate Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 25-73, January 2009)
– Richard Mackey

Understanding Solar Behaviour and its Influence on Climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 145-159, January 2009)
– Timo Niroma

Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue A11, November 2008)
– Nir J. Shaviv

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth’s climate? (PDF)
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, pp. 563-579, January 2000)
– Willie H. Soon, Sallie L Baliunas, Eric S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, pp. 835-845, July 1995)
– K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp.273, January 1961)
– Stuiver, M.

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Volume 194, Number 4270, pp. 1121-1132, December 1976)
– J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton

What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, pp. 913-921, September 1997)
– Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark

Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
(Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 43, pp. 124-127, 2003)
– V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

IPCC:

Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936, December 2007)
– Richard S.J. Tol

Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– Richard S. Courtney

Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 713-719, September 2008)
– Madhav L. Khandekar

The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185, May 2003)
– Ian Castles, David R. Henderson

The IPCC future projections: are they plausible? (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 155–162, August 1998)
– Vincent Gray

The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander

The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.

Kyoto Protocol:

A 2004 View of the Kyoto Protocol
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 505-511, July 2004)
– S. Fred Singer

After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 19-40, 1999)
– Bruce Yandle

Climate Change: Beyond Kyoto
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 5, pp. 763-766, September 2005)
– Anne, Lauvergeon

Climate policy and uncertainty
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Numbers 5-6, pp. 415-423, November 2001)
– Catrinus J. Jepma

Clouds Over Kyoto (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 57-63, 1998)
– Jerry Taylor

The Role of the IPCC is To Assess Climate Change Not Advocate Kyoto
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 369-373, July 2004)
– Ian Castles

Time to ditch Kyoto
(Nature, Volume 449, Issue 7165, pp. 973-975, October 2007)
– Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner

Socio-Economic:

Best practices in prediction for decision-making: Lessons from the atmospheric and earth sciences (PDF)
(Ecology, Volume 84, Number 6, pp. 1351-1358, June 2003)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., Richard T. Conant

Calling the Carbon Bluff: Why Not Tie Carbon Taxes to Actual Levels of Warming? Both Skeptics and Alarmists Should Expect Their Wishes to Be Answered (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 707-711, September 2008)
– Ross McKitrick

Climate Change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation
(Nature, Volume 445, Issue 7128, pp. 597-598, February 2007)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr, Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner, Daniel Sarewitz

Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50, January 1999)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Climate Policy : Quo Vadis?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 207-213, January 2009)
– Hans Labohm

Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 733-745, September 2009)
– Keith H. Lockitch

Discounting the Future (PDF)
(Regulation, Volume 32, Number 1, pp. 36-40, 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany

Environmentalism in the light of Menger and Mises (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Volume 5, Number 2, pp. 3-15, June 2002)
– George Reisman

Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May 2007)
– Christopher Monckton

Global Warming and Its Dangers (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 8, Number 4, 2004)
– Jeffrey R. Clark, Dwight R. Lee

Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (PDF)
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 247-256, 2005)
– David Deming

Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler

Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 619-632, July 2006)
– David R. Henderson

Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Issue 2, April 2007)
– David R. Henderson

How Serious is the Global Warming Threat?
(Society, Volume 44, Number 5, pp. 45-50, September 2007)
– Roy W. Spencer

Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development (PDF)
(Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 755-786, June 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany

Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany

Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 279-302, July 2009)
– Indur M. Goklany

Managing Planet Earth; Adaptation and Cosmology (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 19 Number 1, pp. 69-83, 1999 )
– Curtis A. Pendergraft

Mitigation versus compensation in global warming policy (PDF)
(Economics Bulletin, Volume 17, pp. 1-6, December 2001)
– Ross McKitrick

Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and their Implications for Adaptation and Mitigation (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 797-822, November 2003)
– Indur M. Goklany

Rolling the DICE: William Nordhaus’s Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 14, Number 2, 2009)
– Robert P. Murphy

Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process (PDF)
(Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 275-290, December 2005)
– Ross McKitrick

Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 29 Number 3, pp. 497-521, 2009)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change? (PDF)
(The Independent Review, Volume 11, Number 2, 2006)
– Randall G. Holcombe

Strategies to Enhance Adaptability: Technological Change, Economic Growth and Free Trade (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 30, pp. 427-449, 1995)
– Indur M. Goklany

The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA – Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 941-958, December 2008)
– Ivan Jankovic

The evolution of an energy contrarian
(Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Volume 211, pp. 31-67, November 1996)
– Henry R. Linden

The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (PDF)
(Journal of Information Ethics, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2007)
– Donald W. Miller

The Politicised Science of Greenhouse Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 5, pp. 853-860, September 2004)
– Garth Paltridge

The Real Climate Change Morality Crisis: Climate change initiatives perpetuate poverty, disease and premature death
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 763-777, September 2009)
– Paul Driessen

Turning the big knob: An evaluation of the use of energy policy to modulate future climate impacts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 255-275, May 2000)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr., R. Klein, D. Sarewitz)

When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist (PDF)
(Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp. 405-417, October 2004)
– Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Stern Review:

Climate Science and the Stern Review (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 8, Number 2, April–June 2007)
– Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen

The Stern Review: A Dual Critique (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 7, Number 4, pp. 165-232, October–December 2006)
– Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland, Richard S. Lindzen, Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson, Robert Skidelsky

- Response to Simmonds and Steffen (PDF)
(World Economics, Volume 8, Number 2, April–June 2007)
– David Holland, Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, Richard S. Lindzen

Is Stern Review on climate change alarmist?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 521-532, September 2007)
– S. Niggol Seo

The Stern Review on Climate Change: Inconvenient Sensitivities
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 779-798, September 2009)
– Sergey Mityakov, Christof Rühl

Paper Count: 450

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Ambio
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy & Environment *
Energy Fuels
Energy Sources
Energy The International Journal
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Futures
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
GSA Today
Holocene
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
Irish Astronomical Journal
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Geoscience
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Phytologist
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Paleontological Journal
Paleoceanography
Physical Geography
Physical Review Letters
Physics Letters A
Planetary and Space Science
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation *
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Social Studies of Science
Society
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
The Cato Journal *
The Independent Review
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics Journal

Journal Count: 135

* Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and Scopus
– EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)

* Regulation is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0147-0590)
– EBSCO; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes
– iCONN; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes (PDF)
– ProQuest; Regulation: Peer-Reviewed – Yes

* The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
– EBSCO; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)
– iCONN; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes (PDF)
– ProQuest; Cato Journal: Peer-Reviewed – Yes

Notes – The papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.

“Institute of Scientific Information” (ISI) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s Scopus.

“Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,

Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

Resources:
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
The Truth about RealClimate.org

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Update – 1300, Tuesday 13 October 2009: Paul Hudson has written a blog entry about his article here:

Paul Hudson’s blog

If you google the partial phrase “don’t discuss”, there’s a good chance the very first item that pops up is “don’t discuss politics and  religion”.  This is a broadly accepted bit of cultural common sense, at least in the US.

The central wisdom behind this pearl is these topics are highly personal insofar as one’s views on politics or religion are usually based on belief systems. As we all know, belief systems can be touchy subjects when questioned, even gently. Swing a two-by-four upside a belief system and all hell can break loose. Why? Mostly because belief systems are distinctly different from knowledge systems.

In a knowledge system, “knowing” something usually means you can back it up with an abundance of reliable and repeatable emperical data that can be derived by anyone following the scientific method. The mountain of data supporting the premise that all water runs downhill means we all “know” it. The lack of any real data supporting, for instance, reincarnation means we can choose to believe it happens, but only as a matter of faith. Similarly, you can believe that less government is better government. You may be right, but don’t look to hard scientific data to back you up. Thus, by their very nature, belief systems are more fragile and more difficult to defend than knowledge systems. Challenge a belief system and we get defensive because it threatens who we are. For good or for ill, it’s part of what makes us human.

Where all of this goes down the rabbit hole is when you have a topic that is 100% “knowable” through scientifically derived data and yet takes on the characteristics of a political dispute or a religious belief system. That is where we are today with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), otherwise referred to as man-made climate change.

How can this be?  The answers are more likely to be found in philosophy than  in science. Tom Kow recently wrote an article in his philosophical journal tomkow.com that sheds some light down this rabbit hole.

The following is a portion of Kow’s complete article which recently won the 2009 Prize in Philosophy in 3QuarksDaily.  It’s an interesting trip.

____________________________________

As everyone will know, in the AGW debate there is broad agreement about at least some of the data: that by some measures the world got warmer from about 1970 to about 1998. The AGW theory explains this as the upshot of human generated CO2.  Competing theories range from the extra-terrestial (orbital precession, sunspots) to the mundane (the thermometers are measuring urban heat pollution.)

In my post Is CO2 Causing Climate Change? – No! I mentioned that the road to climate change skepticsm is paved with Global Climate Models (“GCM”s). By that I mean the various GCMs simply aren’t accurate enough to conclude that man-made CO2 is the smoking gun of climate change.

Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with computer models per se. Models of all kinds are commonly used by both engineers and scientists. Like many  models, the GCM’s rely heavily on what is called “first principles” which is another way of saying they use the laws of physics as expressed via mathematical equations. Get the physics right, and the models can provide useful insight into the behavior of complex systems that might not be intuitively obvious. This is especially true for nonlinear systems like climate where reactions are complex and can change behavior depending on what’s going on.

The “trick” with computer models is including all the important components  that can influence the behavior of a system. Each of these must first be understood and then translated into an accurate component model that gets plugged into the bigger system model. Leave out a key component or get it wrong and the system model will likely tell you all kinds of things that, while interesting, may have no resemblance to what really goes on in the real world.

In a nutshell, this is the problem with current GCMs. All the components are either NOT included or are not sufficiently accurate. Not because scientists are stupid, but because they: 1) disagree whether they are important; 2) don’t fully understand yet how they work; 3) don’t know how to model them accurately;  or,  4) simply don’t know about them yet.

In his blog, Rocket Scientist’s Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Glassman writes extensively on the climate change debate and does so with a sharp eye for details.

Glassman’s assessment of the GCMs relied upon by the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unambiguous:  “Internal modeling mistakes by IPCC are sufficient to reject its anthropogenic warming conjecture”

A dense read through much techspeak, Glassman’s critique is a worthwhile eye opener, especially for those readers grounded in engineering or the sciences. Put it this way, if an engineer relied on models with the same deficiencies as Global Climate Change Models and then advocated his employer bet the farm on the results, he’d be making what’s referred to as a career limiting move.  Despite this, the United Nation’s IPCC has adopted these GCMs as the burning bush of climate change.

_________________________________

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
-

Imagine you’re a scientist (come on, go with me on this). You’re ambitious and keen to be thought of as insightful, original,  if not actually brilliant. Your intellectual acumen, and recognition thereof by your peers,  is the metric of your success……or failure if found lacking. Your research takes you into climatology. To your delight, you tap into a deep well of funding through various national and international environmental groups willing to support your research.

You develop global climate models that can be made to show how man-made greenhouse gases could contribute to global warming. You readily admit there is much room for error and uncertainty but are counseled by your patrons not to highlight these uncertainties because too much is at stake. Your patrons lobby successfully and you suddenly find yourself on the scientific advisory team to the United Nations climate change policy group. You’re amongst many like-minded scientists who have other computer models that also show how man made activity could drive climate change. The funding is piling up faster than the theories. You’re part of something bigger than yourself and believe you’re helping to save the world from itself.

Still, that hard core scientist within you keeps wondering about those uncertainties and after a while you bring it up for discussion and are quietly admonished to not mention it again lest you find yourself on the outside looking in and without grant money for your continued research. You become increasingly uncomfortable about the pressure to suppress the full scientific picture and begin to feel manipulated. But perhaps you feel even more uncomfortable at the prospects of going public with your skepticism only to lose your funding, your professional standing and credibility, and even your livelihood.

Pure fiction or a realistic glimpse into the world of the climate change scientist and the environmental politics of global warming? Unfortunately, more so the latter than not.

Garth Paltridge, now a retired Australian climate research scientist, speaks out from behind the protection of his pension, in his book The Climate Caper. The article below is a review of his book and an unsettling account of the suppression of scientific views inconsistent with current climate change orthodoxy. A story of suppression that bears an all too eery resemblance to the inner workings of an organized religion at its cynical worst.

_________________________________

Christopher Pearson | September 12, 2009

Article from: The Australian

GARTH Paltridge was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO’s [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation] division of atmospheric research before becoming the director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre.

His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book, endearingly titled The Climate Caper.

Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and economics of climate change, but I want to focus here on his account of the new green religion. “Perhaps the most interesting question in all this business is how it can be that the scientific community has become so over-the-top in support of its own propaganda about the seriousness and certainty of upcoming drastic climate change. Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment of a problem and are expected to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have built up the capital of their reputation on just that supposition. And for the last couple of decades they have put that capital very publicly on the line in support of a cause which, to say the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of doubt. So how is it that the rest of the scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with both the science of global warming and the way its politics is being played, continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because of the way the dangers of climate change are being vastly oversold?”

Part of the answer lies in the way institutions find ways to silence their employees. Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with the CSIRO. As he recalls: “I made the error at the time of mentioning in a media interview — reported extensively in The Australian on a slow Easter Sunday — that there were still lots of doubts about the disaster potential of global warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of days it was made clear to me from the highest levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public comments again, then it would pull out of the process of forming the new centre.” The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of trying to extract many millions of dollars for further climate research at the time.

Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak their minds are retirees, such as William Kininmonth and Paltridge himself. He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief of CSIRO’s Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker was “a specialist in numerical climate modelling and therefore knew better than most where the bodies are buried in the climate change game. He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the matter. Then he retired, and for four or five years thereafter was the bane of the global warming establishment because of his very public stance against many of its sacred cows.” Eventually he was marginalised by being described as “one of the usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any event was probably on the payroll of industry”.

Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report. Paltridge says: “While the committee was aware of all the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of 100-year prediction of rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of saying so in an Academy response. But if indeed there is something of the order of a 50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable that the fact should be made known in plain English …” Academy members met Garnaut and “rumour has it that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut became very sympathetic to the need for vast new resources to address the need for basic research … In the end it seems that the idea of a response to the Garnaut Report was dropped altogether.”

Eventually the academy came out with a statement of priorities for climate research, which contained a brief reference to the fact that the rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were problematical, but most of the public were none the wiser.

Paltridge says that behind the climate change debate there are two basic truths seldom articulated. “The first is that the scientists pushing the seriousness of global warming are perfectly well aware of the great uncertainty attached to their cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to convince governments of the need to continue research funding, but is not enough to cast real doubt on the case for action. The paths of public comment and official advice on the matter have to be trodden very carefully. The second basic truth is that there is a belief among scientific ‘global warmers’ that they are an under-funded minority among a sea of wicked sceptics who are extensively funded by industry and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to maintain a belief in their own minority status while insisting in public that the sceptics, at least among the ranks of the scientifically literate, are very few.”

The Royal Society did its own reputation a disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil corporation declaring an anathema on dissident climate research. It said: “To be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give the people the final push they need to take action and we can’t have people trying to undermine it.”

Paltridge says: “The staggering thing is that the society, which in other circumstances would be the first to defend the cause of free inquiry … seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying.”

He takes a gloomy view of the likelihood that the political class will soon come to its senses. “One suspects that a fair amount of the shrillness of the climate message derives from a fear that something will happen to prick the scientific balloon so carefully inflated and overstretched over the last few decades. But the IPCC doesn’t really need to worry. The difficulty for the sceptics is that credible argument against accepted wisdom requires, as did the development of the accepted wisdom itself, large-scale resources which can only be supplied by the research institutions. Without those resources, the sceptic is only an amateur who can quite easily be confined to outer darkness.”

In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. “There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”

I recently shocked a few friends, relatives and acquaintances with my contra mundum view that man-made CO2 is not driving the bus on climate change. Yes, I blasphemed and am now branded as a global warming heretic. Perhaps burning at the stake comes next. Somehow I don’t think the distinction between my becoming an informed skeptic vs. a dogmatic denier will save me.

Perhaps Professor Henrik Svensmark can help a little.  Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU. DTU is short for the National Space Institute at the Technical University of Denmark. His research is telling him that the sun has more to do with climate change than previously thought  by the majority of climate scientists; as if science was ever about consensus or democratic rule – it’s not.

The sun impacts climate? Duh! No, it’s not what you think! Of course the sun affects the climate but the Professor isn’t talking about the conventional notion of how much sunshine gets beamed at our globe.

Spotless Sun - Cantainia Observatory - Aug 31, 2009

To grasp the overall gist of this, keep in mind that there are three schools of thought on climate change. First, there’s the greenhouse gas effect school. It’s the Big U. They say it’s man-made CO2 all the way. And they’ve got mathematical models to prove it. Then there’s the water vapor/cloud school. And finally the solar school. The latter two schools are small yet not without merit. It’s noteworthy that the greenhouse gas models largely exclude cloud/solar influences since these are both deemed to be (conveniently) irrelevant by the greenhouse gas school plus the cloud/solar mechanisms are too complex to model.

Along comes Svensmark from the solar school pointing to new evidence that solar activity/energy (as well as high energy particles from exploded stars etc) has a material influence on cloud formation. And few argue that cloud formation doesn’t play a big role in climate.

This is where the solar and cloud schools intersect. Svensmark is saying that a quiet sun (and it has indeed been quiet – no sun spots for over 100 days) means fewer energy particles to help seed cloud formation. Less overall cloud cover leads to cooling.

Whether you or I agree with Professor Svensmark is  besides the greater point he raises. Namely that there are scientifically legitimate contrarian views to the prevailing man-made CO2 consensus that highlight potentially fatal flaws in the greenhouse gas models that currently guide climate change policy.

Professor Svensmark concludes……”So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it becomes again popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.”

Professor Svensmark’s views showed up in a recent Danish newspaper article which follows. Thanks to Anthony Watts over at wattsupwiththat.com for the rough translation from the original Danish. You can also click on the title below to see the original article in Danish.

While the sun sleeps

HENRIK SVENSMARK, Professor, DTU, Copenhagen

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.

The star which keeps us alive, has over the last few years almost no sunspots, which are the usual signs of the sun’s magnetic activity.

Last week, reported the scientific team behind Sohosatellitten (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) that the number of sunspot-free days suggest that solar activity is heading towards its lowest level in about 100 years’.  Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether it has any significance for us on Earth.

If you ask the International Panel on Climate Change IPCC, representing the current consensus on climate change, so the answer is a reassuring ‘nothing’. But history and recent research suggests that it is probably completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.

Solar activity has always varied.  Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the medieval warmth. It was a period when frosts in May was an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for a good harvest.  Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. For example, China’s population doubled over this period.  But after about 1300, the earth began to get colder and it was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period  all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice], and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. But more serious was the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population, because of disease and hunger [population was reduced] by about 30 per cent in Europe.

It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been the highest since the medieval warmth for 1,000 years ago. And now it appears that the sun returns and is heading towards what is called ‘a grand minimum’ as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

The coincidence between solar activity and climate through the ages have tried explained away as coincidence. But it turns out that almost no matter what time studying, not just the last 1000 years, so there is a line. Solar activity has repeatedly over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated between high and low. Actually, the sun over the past 10,000 years spent in a sleep mode, approx. 17 pct of the time, with a cooling of the Earth to follow.

One can wonder that the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the sun changed activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation.

Just radiation would be the simplest way by which the sun could change the climate. A bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

Satellite measurements of solar radiation has been shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but so has closed his eyes for a second much more powerful way the sun is able to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover.  High energy accelerated particles of exploded stars, the cosmic radiation, are helping to form clouds.

When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet, and by regulating the Earth’s cloud cover the sun can turn up and down the temperature. High solar activity obtained fewer clouds and the earth is getting warmer.  Low solar activity inferior shields against cosmic radiation, and it results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming during this period.

This also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility.  It does in fact favor the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is mainly due to human emissions of CO2.  If the sun as has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20 century, it means that CO2’s contribution must necessarily be smaller.

Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has been through a very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006 after many years of work we managed to conduct experiments at DTU Space, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

Then came the criticism that the mechanism we have found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere and therefore had no practical significance.  But the criticism we have just emphatically rejected. It turns out that the sun itself is doing, what we might call natural experiments. Giant solar flares can have the cosmic radiation on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent.  Indeed, [you could say] that the clouds on Earth originated in space.

Therefore we have looked at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by [solar scientists] at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative [passage] “we recommend our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning.  Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.

His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted,  the natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.

One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus to test the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary.

This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity.

So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it becomes again popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

Keith Johnson writes in the New York Times

Don’t tell Al Gore, but it seems the science behind climate change isn’t settled to everyone’s satisfaction.

Coming soon to a theater near you? (AP)

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a public hearing to put “the science of climate change on trial,” the Los Angeles Times reports today. And the Chamber already has another famous trial in mind:

Chamber officials say it would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” — complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect. “It would be evolution versus creationism,” said William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

Ever since the EPA determined this spring that global warming was man-made and posed health risks for Americans, the Chamber has been itching for a public hearing to dispute the scientific basis of that now-famous “endgangerment finding.” The Chamber crystallized its gripes this summer:

It turns out that when EPA issued its finding about the impact of greenhouse gases, it didn’t tell the whole story. When the U.S. Chamber examined the key scientific data used to make the finding–specifically, the link between greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and so-called public endangerment–it found that EPA played fast and loose with the facts. EPA routinely ignored relevant, credible scientific information that contradicted its findings, including information generated by the agency’s own staff. Cherry-picking only the evidence that bolsters your claim is the opposite of scientific integrity, transparency, and openness.

UPDATE: The full Chamber of Commerce petition is now available. And Mr. Kovacs added in a statement: “Let me be clear, we are not debating the science behind global warming,” Kovacs said. “We are unconvinced that EPA has demonstrated, as a matter of law, that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles in the U.S. endanger public health or welfare.”

The prospect of a replay of the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial,” which hinged around a Tennessee school teacher who purposely tested state law by teaching evolution in the classroom, would be more great theater for a climate debate already heavily theatrical. Who would reprise the roles of the two titanic lawyers—William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow—whose duel spawned a play and four movies? More to the point, who would play them in the movie version these days?

But the lessons of the Scopes trial shouldn’t necessarily cheer environmentalists, who apparently told the L.A. Times that “the scientists won in the end.”

They didn’t—John Scopes was found guilty of violating state law by teaching evolution, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. His salvation came on a legal technicality hinging on the dollar amount of the fine he was given, after he’d already abandoned the classroom. In the long run, of course, scientists did win, after Tennessee changed its laws and the U.S. Supreme Court struck down similar anti-evolution laws.

Either way, it seems the EPA doesn’t want to go there, telling the L.A. Times the proposed hearing is a “waste of time.”

Richard Feynman was a delightful national treasure and Nobel Prize winning Physicist.

You many remember him as the thoughtful scientist who nailed the root cause of the Challenger space shuttle disaster – cold 0-rings – which he demonstrated live during a presentation covered by the media by dropping some of the same 0-ring material into his glass of ice water. He also worked on the Manhattan Project.

For Richard, being a scientist meant the truth was more important than being right. Integrity in science is paramount. Without it, science isn’t science and it will fail us. Or worse.

We live in troubled pivotal times where money, politics and environmental fervor have created a heady cocktail that may be luring too many scientists – and society – astray.

Richard warned his fellow scientist about going over to the dark side during his famous “Cargo Cult Science” commencement address that he gave at Caltech in 1974.

If, like me, you’re grappling with all we’ve been told to date regarding global warming, climate change, carbon, and mankind’s role in it all, you could do a lot worse than read Feynman’s address regarding the slippery slope to bad science that he refers to as “Cargo Cult Science”.

It’s a long piece, but like Feynman himself, always entertaining and insightful. Enjoy!

——————–

CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman

Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such
as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a
method was discovered for separating the ideas--which was to try
one to see if it worked, and if it didn't work, to eliminate it.
This method became organized, of course, into science. And it
developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It
is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in
understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when
nothing that they proposed ever really worked--or very little of
it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me
into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of
mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and
so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to
investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my
curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I
found so much junk that I'm overwhelmed. First I started out by
investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.
I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations,
so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a
hotbed of this kind of thought (it's a wonderful place; you should
go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn't realize how
much there was.

At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated
on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most
pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and
watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into
the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she
quietly appears and settles into the bath with me.

One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl
sitting with a guy who didn't seem to know her. Right away I began
thinking, "Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this
beautiful nude babe?"

I'm trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her,
I'm, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?"

"Sure," she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a
massage table nearby.

I think to myself, "What a nifty line! I can never think of
anything like that!" He starts to rub her big toe. "I think I feel
it, "he says. "I feel a kind of dent--is that the pituitary?"

I blurt out, "You're a helluva long way from the pituitary, man!"

They looked at me, horrified--I had blown my cover--and said, "It's
reflexology!"

I quickly closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.

That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I
also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the
latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able
to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his
hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both
mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that
succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key
and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it
works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing
in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and
him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was
unable to investigate that phenomenon.

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And
I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have
been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So
I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have
some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading
methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice,
you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up
in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to
improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't
work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their
method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We
obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--
in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to
handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest;
but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain
temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--
including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what
we have to deal with.

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.

A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the
subject.  Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the
only difficulty.  That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't
land.

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because
it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something
must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that
kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves--of
having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something
that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that
I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are
the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about
that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other
scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after
that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to
tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be
a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll
leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the
applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any."
He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of
this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're
representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to
the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you
under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind
to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look
good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether
drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it
would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a
result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're
being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the
government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument
in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish
it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When
I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology
department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an
experiment that went something like this--it had been found by
others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A.
She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to
Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment
under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her
laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under
condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change
to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real
difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her
professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the
experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time.
This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general
policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but
only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even
in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an
experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator
Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his
heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen"
he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light
hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why,
he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because
there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the
experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there
wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs
at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money
to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are
destroying--possibly--the value of the experiments themselves,
which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the
experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific
integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For
example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937
a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long
corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and
doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if
he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from
wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the
door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was
so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door
as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was
different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very
carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly
the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats
were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell
after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the
rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement
in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the
corridor, and still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded
when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his
corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible
clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to
learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions,
the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one
experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running
experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat
is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the
experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
rat-running.

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next
experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young.
They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on
sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats
in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries
of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't
discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the
things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not
paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of
cargo cult science.

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other
people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves
have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the
techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and
smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists
are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can
do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a
million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and
get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't
get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an
irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is
science?

This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which
he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology.
And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the
things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have
shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent--
not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students
who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a
policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain
results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific
integrity.

So I have just one wish for you--the good luck to be somewhere
where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have
described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain
your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on,
to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

Until recently, I was convinced that anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) was the primary driver of climate change and that we needed to take CO2 very seriously including making responsible public policy to reduce its production.

How did I “know” that CO2 was causing global warming? Come on, how could I not know! Like me, you probably get most of your information from the popular media. So you can hardly be blamed for believing that the science surrounding climate  change is settled (i.e. the scientists are mostly in agreement) and that it’s all about carbon – as in man-made CO2. It’s been in the  news almost on a daily basis, on the cover of most leading magazines for the past several years, and has pervaded popular cultural with a growing sense of alarm.

Vice President Al Gore even won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for elevating the visibility and urgency of man-made global warming. Congress is attempting to movie forward with carbon cap-and-trade legislation. It’s gotta be real, right?

And then there are all those climate scientists. Hundreds of them. No, thousands! Who all contributed to, and/or endorsed, the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the “IPCC”) which basically agreed with Al Gore.  And what about the Kyoto Treaty and all those governments from all over the planet that signed on to it?

I wish I could claim that I had some kind of special Einsteinian insight that allowed me to see past all of this “evidence” to some hidden nugget of contrarian truth. No, instead it was this uncomfortable feeling I got while chatting with a fellow engineer who was quite skeptical of the popular mantra of man-made climate change. I kept wondering why such an educated, informed and otherwise rational guy like him just didn’t  “get it” when it came to climate change.

I couldn’t leave it alone. So I decided to dig into the facts and learn for myself.  If you have internet access and a browser, the evidence is out there.  What I learned shocked me.

First, you  need time and patience to sort through a mountain of pseudo-science, fanaticism, and just plain crap. The bulk of all that falls into one of two camps – the rants and raves of either the zealous “believers” or  the rabid “deniers”. Either camp is too dogmatic for my taste and they smell like a combo of religion cultists and AM talk radio cretins.  If you get past most of that clutter a picture begins to emerge that bears little resemblance to what is dished out by the popular media.

What surprised me the most was the Vostok ice core data that goes back 100′s of thousands of years as shown plotted in the graph below. You’d be right if you concluded that this data shows a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature. But a closer analysis reveals (not discernible  in the graph) that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by an average of 800 years!  Temperatures do indeed appear to control carbon and not the other way around (perhaps through temperature driven solubility changes in sea water). And while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature the data don’t show much evidence of that. As temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that this CO2 lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles.

Ironically, Al Gore used this same data in his book/movie,  “An Inconvenient Truth”, to “prove” that CO2 was driving global warming. Conveniently, he left out the part about the 800 year CO2 lag. I don’t know why.

I was also surprised to learn that the number of climate skeptics is on the rise as data, assumptions, and climate models are being more carefully reconsidered.

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”  – Wall Street Journal

What we really know for certain is that the earth, on average, has undergone a one-degree warming over recent decades (most of it before 1940) and that the climate has, and will continue to, change due to natural forces.  All else, is pure speculation and theory, much of it based upon extremely fallible computer modeling rather than actual empirical evidence.

Why are computer models of climate change fallible? You don’t have to look any further than modern weather forecasting  for a practical and familiar perspective. Meteorological models have gotten decent at predicting weather out a few days, sometimes even out 7-10 days. Even so, they sometimes get it wrong. Would you trust a weather forecast 2 weeks out,  a month, a year?

Now step back and imagine a mathematical model for the entire globe based almost entirely on first principal physics equations (but little or no hard empirical data) that tries to simulate something way more complex than next week’s weather and  instead tries to capture the complex physical and chemical interactions of the oceans, land, ice, air, sun, clouds, cosmic rays etc. out over months and even years. Interactions that scientists readily admit are not yet fully understood – hence they can’t be modeled accurately!

Now take the many versions of these computer models (22 +) and their various resulting projections, get everyone in a room and vote on the your favorite, call that a scientific consensus (which the lay community and the media interpret as proven fact), and subsequently declare a global emergency requiring a gigantic tax on CO2 emissions! That may qualify as a good working definition of collective global madness but it is not how good science is done.

“At the heart of scientific thinking has to be a strong desire not to fool yourself, coupled by an understanding of how to actually put that desire into practice. Complex systems are an important and relevant topic, but they’ve been so difficult to tackle because they are messy and hard to study. It’s difficult to find the right simplifying assumptions, and to make sure that you’ve considered all of the important factors that go into the behavior of the system. It’s so easy to be wrong.

And so it’s sad to see this emerging scientific culture that bizarrely believes that if you can produce a model that fits the data that inspired you to build the model, you’ve actually shown that your model accurately captures the system. This culture floods the scientific literature with zero-impact papers, dazzles the computationally naïve, captures a lot of air time in the news.”  -  Michael White

What appears to be happening here is a most unfortunate confluence of science, politics, media hype, environmental activism and the emergence of something that more closely resembles a green religion.

Given the present political climate where something as tangible and familiar as health care can barely get a fair hearing, a densely complex topic  like climate change doesn’t stand a chance; especially when it gets wrapped in an alarmist blanket of doom and gloom that the media can’t help but throw some more fuel on and light another match…..over and over again.

Maybe I’m not as wise as I’d like to think I am but I’ve definitely become a climate change skeptic (regarding CO2) as a result of my inquiry into the science surrounding the climate change debate. A debate that is obviously far from settled and one which it witnessing significant defections by leading scientists into the skeptics camp.

What we should worry about far more than global warming (which is going to happen, or not, no matter what we do) is the havoc that a carbon tax could inflict on our economy as rational scientific (and public) debate gets sacrificed on the alter of environmental extremism.

Meanwhile, as we obsess ever more about CO2 there is little doubt we’re taking our eye off the ball of both real pollution (NOx, SO2, Mercury, et. al. ) and the far more real national security threat of our energy supply.

This whole debacle reminds me of a quote by Bertrand Russell who said….“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

I strongly encourage the reader to look into this further. Neither a believer nor a denier be. Get the facts and let them fall where they may.

In closing, I believe the following is a fair summary of 10 popular myths surrounding global warming as provided by CO2Science.org. I also refer you to a list of informative websites which can be found on my “Links” page. I  will be adding to this list over the coming days and weeks as I learn more.

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17^th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO₂ as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO₂, CH₄, Ozone and N₂O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO₂ constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapor and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.

Those attributing climate change to CO₂ rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6:  The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.