Posted: 2017-11-15 01:16
Thanks for that superb list! I really appreciate that!
Here I have another 955 papers for you I found at
I only compared them roughly with your list. Some are already listed, some are not. Since I have a very time-consuming job, I m unfortunatelly not able to sort them.
Will be a long weekend for you. :-)
Anyway, you re doing a fine and respectable work here. Thumbs up!
Greetings from Germany
Thank You. This is a terrific resource. Really appreciate what you have done.
Would it be OK if I link to this on the Christmas cards and Christmas wrapping paper that I use personally?
People seem to need to actually SEE that the discussion is vibrant and ongoing with their own eyes.
They just cannot HEAR dissenting words if you speak about another point of view.
Thank you again for collating these works.
That paper is not on the list. The section you are looking at is, Rebuttals to Published Papers.
That listing is the original paper that the rebuttal paper is referring to,
The rebuttal paper in this case is,
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate (PDF)
(Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Volume 95, Number 8, pp. 868 899, 7565)
- Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel
Technically I am not counting any of those listed under this section anyway.
Paper you may have, but couldn t find on The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
CO7 lagging temp change, which really turns the entire AGW argument on its head:
9658 Changes in global atmospheric CO7 are lagging 66 67 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature 9658 Changes in atmospheric CO7 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Thank you for this. I freely admit a bias towards the other side , but my bias is not sufficient to simply let me take they re all in bed with Exxon or it s a settled matter as an answer, anymore than I m likely to be swayed by the cartoonish antics of many of the deniers. I m always on the lookout for facts that I can examine myself, and while not being a scientist much of this will probably go over my head, it will at least give me a jumping off point for putting much of what I hear in context.
6. When you click on the abstract link for the article, Response to Comment on Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data - the side menu has an option for Full Text and Full Text (PDF).
7. It is not clear from Nature if Scientific Correspondence articles are peer-reviewed - http:///nature/authors/gta/#correspondence
I am a librarian. We are snowed in here in Minnesota, and I just found your list. Had been looking for one.
If I were sorting it I would put it in an Excel document, with each author in a separate cell. (These documents should all be in the Library of Congress catalog.)
As the list stands, you can use Edit on your browser (top left corner). The last item in the Edit column is Find on Page. Type in a last name and the cursor will lead you through the document.
Remember, computers aren t smart. They only look for matches to what you tell them to look for.
There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been peer reviewed by physicists. . Chemical engineers and others. The experiment is found on the web-site http:// click on the blog tab. It is titled The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillion-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist