Yes, I’m putting the ‘k’ back in skeptic.
Popular Technology has been adding links to a resource they have created for papers which have non-consensus views. In my experience, the devil is often in the details so when reading, don’t go by the titles and abstracts but get the papers and check them out. Still they have successfully listed 700 papers which they claim have non-consensus views on climatology.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
At least a couple of them have storied pasts due to the gauntlet they were forced to run to reach published status. There is one in particular by McIntyre McKitrick again which is a valid criticism of Santers work validating models. The paper hasn’t been allowed by the powers that be to take its rightful place on the list as of yet.
It’s an interesting resource, check it out.
the Air Vent 
Jeff,
Try “gantlet” “Gauntlet” is a glove.
Thanks, Jeff, this is a valuable resource.
Please add: “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20, 131-144 (2009).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
The expression is correct as stated. “Gantlet” is another form of “gauntlet,” which has more than one meaning.
Is it this one up on arxiv?
– An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
– Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Perhaps, perhaps, Banjoman0, especially in England where the language has had longer to decay, alas.
Obviously #5 is nonsense, but since the words have different roots, it doesn’t seem effete to use them for different things.
Yes, skeptic is the US spelling.
Dr. Manuel your paper is already listed under the solar section which is chronological.
Submitted papers and any solely published on arxiv are included for the reference and not counted towards the total. At least this way people will be made aware of them.
i count 105 papers from Energy & Environment. (please correct my number, if it is wrong)
that is one hell of a peer-review…
and the completely debunked McLean paper is on the list. and a correction. counted as two entries…
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
i can only agree with Jeff: “It’s an interesting resource”
Sod, I suggest you read the Notes at the bottom,
Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment
Why would the correction be counted as two entries when it explicitly states,
“Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.”
McLean’s rebuttal to the “debunking” is also included,
– Response to “Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'” by Foster et al. (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
– John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter
“completely debunked” is an odd description of a paper in which a single line in the conclusions which over reached has been criticized by people who don’t disagree that there is an ENSO signal.
I agree that it was not 100% right (I’m also not sure what their valid point, about short term variation, has to do with AGW skepticism) But it wasn’t 100% wrong either.
I criticized this fellow before:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/how-not-to-use-an-argumentum-ad-numerum/
Basically I thought that he made more of his list than you actually could justify with it. I agree that it is a convenient place to find links to a lot of papers which disagree with a lot of the extremist rhetoric, though.
Unfortunately your criticism was based on not reading the following statement,
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.” Which I pointed out in the comment to your post.
So yes some are simply in support of skepticism of “alarmism”. So the list is exactly what I justified it to be.
11-Yes, I know, The problem was that at the time, that statement was not featured as prominently as it should have been, and if you only read the headline, you wouldn’t get that point.
I also noted in the post after you featured that statement more prominently that it was an improvement. Here’s what worries me: We always have to be extremely clear and never overstate our case. If it was me, I’d put the papers in categories regarding what specifically they support. Readers who just see the headline still might infer that all the papers address the AGW question itself.
“Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.”
sorry, i missed that one. must have been to shocked by the paper being on the list, to note this.
i just love the technical defences. “Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal”. yes, and “sceptic” papers surely must fulfil highest standards, to pass this peer review. (same with E&E)
12 – The statement is the very first sentence, so I do not know how much clearer it needs to be.
The IPCC report is not just the WGI report but also includes the WGII and the WGIII reports. Thus papers that support skepticism of the second two are relevant.
The categories are based on common areas of interest in the debate.
Sod, It is not a technical defense but an irrefutable one,
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)
“E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed“ – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
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
14-It WASN’T in the first sentence when I originally complained. You even said you moved it. This was your comment:
“The list noted that the papers supported skepticism of AGW or the environmental or economic effects of, this has now been moved to the top of the list for clarification” (Emphasis added)
And I’m not sure why you bring up the IPCC, but I think we got past my main beef already. Again, your page is a useful resource for finding this stuff. Good work.
16 – It was the first sentence following the list of papers and now is the first sentence at the top, yet you still linked to your outdated and erroneous criticism.
You are not sure why I brought up the IPCC in a discussion about peer-reviewed papers, skepticism and global warming? Seriously?
16-Yes, I don’t get the relevance to your point, since your point was, I thought, not about the IPCC.
I linked to the article I had not to suggest you were wrong, but to point out the exchange and my feelings on the use of huge numbers of papers as an argument.
You do know I’m one of the “good guys” right?
18 – The IPCC report is the epitome of defense for AGW theory, thus criticism of any of their reports in effect is criticizing the theory and alarmism.
Argumentum ad numerum is the most common form or argument used by alarmists – “consensus”, “2500 scientists”, “thousands of peer-reviewed papers” ect… Having references countering these claims is important in the debate. The show of a huge number of papers is simply an argument against a common misconception that none or a few of these papers exist. But that is only one purpose of the list, the other is as a reference for those looking to make more specific arguments with published works.
18-That’s fair. I think we are basically in agreement now.
Useful list- Thanks
Can anyone provide a link to the full paper in Nature Feb 1990 “Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Cynthia Kuo et al
Not everyone has access to university libraries and few can afford the cost of single articles.
You know what’s needing to be done, now that there are many so-called “skeptic” peer-revied papers?
Use those papers to produce a “Shadow” IPCC report, purely based on those 🙂
That would make an interesting read. 😉
20 – I am not aware of any location that has that full paper available for free. Where possible I included a PDF link if the full paper was available.
21 – In effect this has been done, not on this complete list (though many of these papers are included) but I believe it is what you are looking for,
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
J Ferguson;
Nope. Gantlet is an Americanized gauntlet. Thank Noah Webster.
Word History: The spelling gauntlet is acceptable for both gauntlet meaning “glove” or “challenge” and gauntlet meaning “a form of punishment in which lines of men beat a person forced to run between them”; but this has not always been the case. The story of the gauntlet used in to throw down the gauntlet is linguistically unexciting: it comes from the Old French word gantelet, a diminutive of gant, “glove.” From the time of its appearance in Middle English (in a work composed in 1449), the word has been spelled with an au as well as an a, still a possible spelling. But the gauntlet used in to run the gauntlet is an alteration of the earlier English form gantlope, which came from the Swedish word gatlopp, a compound of gata, “lane,” and lopp, “course.” The earliest recorded form of the English word, found in 1646, is gantelope, showing that alteration of the Swedish word had already occurred. The English word was then influenced by the spelling of the word gauntlet, “glove,” and in 1676 we find the first recorded instance of the spelling gauntlet for this word, although gantelope is found as late as 1836. From then on spellings with au and a are both found, but the au seems to have won out.
I know this is off topic, but I need someplace to put it where I have a reasonable expectation that it won’t get deleted. Jeff is very good that way.
Well that didn’t work. Second try:
I posted this at http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
“Congratulations to Dr. Curry for stepping out of the veil of stupidity that seems to cloak so-called “climate science” (i.e. fraud by any other name). Maybe there is some hope for it yet, but I won’t hold my breath as long as RC and its ilk persist.”
I copied it to CA and it was deleted. Probably because I called “climate science” a fraud, but hey; I calls ’em as I sees ’em. Screw being PC. And thanks to Jeff for having an open blog like this.
hi,maybe link below can help
Paper Resource