Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!

Reader Kenneth has compiled and submitted a comprehensive list of some 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 2015 on climate, all supporting the premise that the Earth’s climate is driven in large part by natural factors. It now has been posted.

National+Academy+of+Sciences+logo_thmb

Science institutes can no longer ignore massive body of scientific evidence that contradicts the man-made global warming theory. Image: logo of the National Academy of Sciences

How could the IPCC, scientific academies, institutions, lawmakers possibly ignore them? They are out there for all to see – and now in a single list.

What follows is just a tiny random sampling of the findings this massive body of evidence delivers:

A small sampling of findings

Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/43/3/203

Solar minimum conditions reinforce the high pressure above Greenland together with a weakening of the other two North Atlantic pressure centres.” http://www.ann-geophys.net/33/207/2015/angeo-33-207-2015.pdf

There have been many studies noting correlations between solar cycles and changes in the Earth temperature.”
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1504.0124v1.pdf

“Ocean heat content anomaly (OHCa) time series in some areas of the Pacific are significantly correlated with the total solar irradiance (TSI). ” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682615300778

Here, we demonstrate that the CR [cosmic ray] effect on ΔGT [global temperature] is robust to reasonable measures of global temperature,…” http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/E4640.extract

“Solar forcing as an important trigger for West Greenland sea-ice variability over the last millennium.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379115301682

We show how clouds provide the necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry. We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and regulation by clouds.”
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf

“While there is scientific consensus that global and local mean sea level (GMSL and LMSL) has risen since the late nineteenth century, the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcing remains unclear.”
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150729/ncomms8849/full/ncomms8849.html

“Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

“Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content. “
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14491.html

“Predicted slow-down in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss. Recent forecasts indicate that a spin-down of the thermohaline circulation that began near the turn of the century will continue, and this will result in near neutral decadal trends in Atlantic winter sea ice extent in coming years, with decadal growth in select regions.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065364/abstract

The list of the 2015 papers with such findings is some 250 long! To claim that they do not matter and do not count is willful ignorance. And keeping them from the public is flat out deception and a disservice to the field of science. Little wonder government and institutions have seen the public trust fade.

This list is the perfect thing to educate them. only needs to be sent this list. Send it to your Senators, Congressmen, newspaper editors, journalists, teachers, professors or blind following alarmists who are currently on the verge of a nervous breakdowns over the fictitious global warming catastrophe.

 

64 responses to “Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!”

  1. yonason

    There you go, cherry picking again! //s//

    OK, sod, I got the ball rolling for you. Keep it in play.

    1. sod

      “cherry picking”

      You simply use a popular term, obviously without understanding it. The same is true for the whole compilation of papers.

      Just because i sometimes use the term cherrypick to describe a cherrypick on this page (we look at the january trend of snow cover on Iceland…) does not make “cherrypick” the term to contradict each post here.

      In the same way, these articles mention terms (like sun spots, cycle or AMO) without making the connection that what is happening today is best explained by this.

      Wake me up, if we have a relevant number of scientists who publish about sunspots being the cause of recent temperature rises.

      1. M E

        Wake up and try a search on the internet for anything to do with sunspots. Then make up your own mind don’t just parrot what they tell you at school. That is the proper method for coming to a conclusion. Think like a detective!

        Use Google Advanced search. Even I can use it!

      2. DirkH

        sod 17. February 2016 at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Reply
        “Wake me up, if we have a relevant number of scientists who publish about sunspots being the cause of recent temperature rises.”

        You are confusing either democracy or Soviet/EU-style consensus decision by a Politburo with the scientific method.

  2. John Shade

    I can well believe it. The NIPCC reports have highlighted similar papers in earlier years, papers typically ignored in the blinkered IPCC studies, and the even more blinkered, biased, and political-goal directed Summaries for Policy Makers produced by that disgraceful organisation.

  3. Ole Jensen

    Fingers in the ears….
    Eyes closed….
    Lalalalalalalala….
    See, globull warming is real….

  4. Robin Pittwood

    Well done Kenneth Richard. A significant labour, and no doubt you’ll be handsomely rewarded … With a few congratulatory notes, (not bank notes). Thanks for sharing with Pierre and the rest of the readers here.

  5. boyfromtottenham

    Hi from Oz. Pierre said:”How could the IPCC, scientific academies, institutions, lawmakers possibly ignore them?” Answer: Of course the IPCC (and its acolytes) can ignore these academic papers, because the stated aim of the IPCC is to investigate (and only investigate) the ‘human’ causes of climate change. See the clever wording – this means that they can legally and righteously ignore anything that is ‘out of scope’ of their remit, such as any paper which refers to non-human causes of climate change. To the IPCC, the fact that this cleverly distorted ‘aim’ results in the current absurd outcomes is completely beside the point. They are simply sticking strictly to their remit – logic doesn’t come into it. This definition is the core of the AGW argument, not the science! The crucial question for us is ‘what the hell do we do about stopping this global farce?’. It is beyond me, I’m afraid – a have a logical mind. Maybe ask a very clever lawyer?

    1. Denis Ables

      There’s no doubt about the IPCC mission, but what it is saying, w/o justification, is that the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming is human activity.

      There is NO evidence that co2 level, even over geologic periods when co2 was 2,000+ppmv (several times higher than current 400pmv) that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. The ignorant folks who claim that experiment (using a closed container) showed some increase in temperature when co2 was added proves NOTHING insofar as the open atmosphere, where are all manner of feedbacks. Besides, satellites invariably detect heat (radiation) escaping to space!

      NOAA and NASA are now adding bogus SST (via ship inboard) data to offset what the 3,600 ARGO buoys were designed to report. The shipboard data has a .12C temperature bias. Both these agencies were arguing that 2014 was the “hottest” when the differences in annual temperature amongst recent warm years differed by a few hundredths of ONE degree well with the 1/10 uncertainty level. This cannot be considered a process which would be used by ANY real scientist. Keep in mind that those agencies are run by political appointees who are going to play to Obama’s tune, regardless.

      Notice, there’s little noise these days about the Antarctic sea extent. It’s been breaking higher records constantly, and for years. And now, the Arctic is once again showing a significant increase in sea ice extent.

      Then there are our two weather satellites, both of which show a current trend of NO additonal warming for the past 18+ years – and this includes in 2015 more than half a year of El Nino. Now the same useful idiots are trying to claim that was all anthropogenic warming (in other words, DENYing El Nino, as well as the satellite data which even NASA at one point in the past had declared as more accurate than terrestrial data (which is all it uses.)

      Then there is the fact that there are not 3 separate terrestrial data sets. PHil Jones one of the infamous players in this IPCC bogus claim, admitted some years ago that 90 to 95% of the SAME raw data is used by all 3 supposed data sets. The only reason there are 3 is because 3 different government groups are revising the raw terrestrial data leading to 3 somewhat different results.

  6. Paul von Hartmann

    The increase in solar UVB radiation reaching the surface of the planet, over the past six decades, is not contestable. The deaths of Earth’s boreal forests and marine phytoplankton are not contestable. Fortunately, the solution is obvious. The question is, can humans shift Cannabis value from illegal to essential in time to avert irreversible, global systemic collapse.

    1. DirkH

      “The deaths of Earth’s boreal forests and marine phytoplankton are not contestable.”

      Well I contest it. I looked for statistics of boreal forest area and global marine phytoplankton biomass and I can’t find any. So, as they’re dying, as you say, surely SOMEONE has drawn a graph of it? Please provide it.

      “Fortunately, the solution is obvious. The question is, can humans shift Cannabis value from illegal to essential in time to avert irreversible, global systemic collapse.”

      Growing weed helps the phytoplankton exactly how? Ah, I know. We’ll make our trousers from hemp instead of kelp, right?

      1. yonason

        @DirkH

        Destruction of boreal forests for biodiesel – you know, to save the planet and prevent CO2 from destroying the boreal forests.

        Even some Lefties know that’s nuts.
        http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP68Pacheco.pdf

        I don’t know why it wasn’t posted, but my initial response to his post was, “Huh?”

        But is it true? I think his post speaks for itself.

        1. yonason

          That link illustrating how even some Lefties think boreal forest to biodiesel is a bad idea was supposed to have been replaced with this one.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/biofuels-climate-change_b_8022222.html
          Sorry

          1. DirkH

            They love the word “clear-cutting” that’s for sure. And grisly pictures of chainsaws in the huge PDF they link to; the chainsaw, an instrument invented originally for horror movies, now applied to nature!

            Humanity uses 2 cubic kilometers of wood per year. For construction and as fuel. That ain’t gonna change. Because it tends to grow back.
            Bjoern Lomborg has some data about this in The Skeptical Environmentalist.

      2. David Appell

        @DirkH contests those conclusions, on the basis that he was unable to do sufficient research.

        How scientific of him.

        1. yonason

          Thanks, David, for providing links to show why DirkH is wrong, . . . . . . .oh, wait. You didn’t.

        2. AndyG55

          The rotten Appell continues with his low-end science fiction.

          Its all he has. His life’s work.

          No wonder he trolls realist sites for attention.

        3. DirkH

          David Appell 20. February 2016 at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Reply
          “@DirkH contests those conclusions, on the basis that he was unable to do sufficient research.
          How scientific of him.”

          See, nutter. Somebody claims boreal forests (that’s a lot of forest!) and pyhtoplankton (that’s a lot of the entire biosphere!) are DYING! Now that might be so, but it’s the most outrageous claim I heard EVER.

          So don’t you think that if someone claims the most outrageous thing ever it is too much to demand … DATA?

          Because, you would expect every progressive media outlet i.e. ALL of them to hop up and down madly 24/7 if there were even the slightest hint of that.

          1. Colorado Wellington

            I found Appell intellectually dishonest years ago and it hasn’t changed but back then he was at least trying to make his arguments appear credible.

            He has since become a sloppy caricature of himself. I don’t know for sure but I suspect he’s just lonely (see his depressing website if you care to understand). You would think that he’s intelligent enough to leave von Hartmann’s nutty “Cannabis Ministry” proselytizing alone. I guess he’s so needy of some human connection it doesn’t matter to him anymore how he looks to the outside world and that the only reaction he gets is mockery. I have no other explanation why anyone trying to maintain the appearance of scientific objectivity would demand that skeptics do research to prove the negative of an incoherent and unsupported alarmist assertion.

  7. Arsten

    I’ve seen a lot of language similar to this from papers I’ve perused from the die Kalte Sonne’s MWP mapping project, too.

    (I don’t mean to take accolades away from Kenneth Richard for his efforts, btw.)

  8. yonason

    While 250 papers from 2015 is an impressive number, I have a gut feeling that most of the important work on this has already been published. If we only focus on recent developments, we might miss something important, like this paper by Nir Shaviv
    http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

    In fact, if one does a google scholar search on __ “nir shaviv” climate __ one retrieves 156 papers that span more than a decade. And that’s just the material from one “skeptic.”

    There’s a lot out there that the warmist advocates either ignore, or are ignorant of. The warmist cult doctrine is a mockery of what science could and should be, a complete disgrace.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Be patient, Yonason. This night I had a dream in which the gods of ancient Greece told me they installed AGW as an instrument to teach future generations how to do science.

  9. Pethefin

    There is also this, even more extensive (currently 1350+), collection of peer reviewed papers supporting skeptical view against AGW/CAGW/ACC/ACD:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  10. Paul Litely

    Believing that Humans can control the weather has an infinite cost.

  11. sod

    ““Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.””

    Sorry, but what is this supposed to cast doubt on?

    This is obviously true.

    The list looks like a random compilation of articles that contain the term “cycle” or “sun spot” or “AMO”.

  12. 250 klimathotsskeptiska artiklar under 2015 - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] av NoTricksZones läsare har samlat inte mindre än 250 skeptiska artiklar som publicerats under 2015 här. Det är […]

  13. tomwys

    Please do not disturb those with weaker minds, with facts that they cannot hope to digest!

  14. Jeff Wood

    It would be ironic if the Warmunists were provoked into an attempt to discredit Peer Review, considering their efforts in the past to convert Peer Review into Holy Writ…

  15. Dave Fair

    Dudes: Check out some of the articles in Nature. They support AGW and the models. Don’t be sucked into supporting things you have not personally checked out.

    1. yonason

      Only $200.00/yr to read all the junk warmists allow to be printed.
      http://www.nature.com/ecommerce/subscribe.action?productId=nature
      Such a deal!

  16. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    http://www.drtimball.com

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1
    http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts

  17. Dave Orcabait

    One of your pull quotes says:”Predicted slow-down in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss. Recent forecasts indicate that a spin-down of the thermohaline circulation that began near the turn of the century will continue, and this will result in near neutral decadal trends in Atlantic winter sea ice extent in coming years, with decadal growth in select regions. ”

    YET the very first sentence of the article says “There is little doubt that we will see a decline in Arctic sea ice cover in this century in response to anthropogenic warming”

    1. sod

      “YET the very first sentence of the article says “There is little doubt that we will see a decline in Arctic sea ice cover in this century in response to anthropogenic warming””

      As i said above, these articles were compiled by doing a keyword search for “cycles” or “AMO”.

      Then a random quote about “cycles” or “AMO” was put into this text, without any look at what the paper really says.

      1. yonason

        SOD NO GOT NO ‘GOTCHA’.

        “…without any look at what the paper really says.” – sod

        Really? Lets take a look. You mean like this?

        “…projected 10 year trends in Arctic winter sea ice extent seem likely to be more positive than has recently been observed, with decadal climate variability substantially masking the effects of anthropogenic warming.”
        (Not hard to “SUBSTANTIALLY MASK” something that isn’t there, now, is it?)

        And what was Kenneth Richard’s thesis? That…
        “Science institutes can no longer ignore massive body of scientific evidence [natural variability] that contradicts the man-made global warming theory.”

        Warmunistas will still try to sell us their defective narrative, but not without having to come up with pathetic excuses about why it doesn’t perform as advertised. Or, to phrase it as a sales pitch… “Buy new improved AG-WARM-0, now made 99.9999% MORE effective by adding 100 times as much of our competitor’s product, NAT-VAR-O.”

        In layman’s terms, K.R.’s claim has not been falsified.

        And of course the warmists will continue to insist that anthropogenic forcing is important, despite being found to be far less important that they once said it was. They have to. Their funds and positions depend on it. What’s your excuse?

        Sod went fishing, and reeled in a boot.

  18. Dave Orcabait

    Another of your pull quotes ” While there is scientific consensus that global and local mean sea level (GMSL and LMSL) has risen since the late nineteenth century, the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcing remains unclear ”

    BUT the end of that same paragraph says “On the basis of a model assessment of the separate components, we conclude that it is virtually certain (P=0.99) that at least 45% of the observed increase in GMSL is of anthropogenic origin.”

    1. yonason

      Um, take home msg is? – Gotta be careful reading warmists papers, or one might suffer intellectual whiplash trying to follow their tortuous arguments.

      No anthropogenic harm? No grant! Now THAT’s “clear.”

  19. Aphan

    Is that really the official logo of the National Academy of Sciences?
    Someone groping their way forward with a torch held up BEHIND them? Oh…the irony…..I can’t stop laughing.

    1. yonason

      You know, I think you are correct. Maybe we can replace it with this?
      http://www.tychosnose.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DoubleBlind-624×448.jpg

      Hmmm, come to think of it, they aren’t that much different.

  20. David Appell

    As a test, I picked one of the papers early in your list at random, and looked closely.

    Of course, I ignored any papers by Willie Soon, who has been shown to produce the science asked by whomever pays him, has been disgraced, and whom no one takes at all seriously.

    I picked:

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/5401/2015/cpd-11-5401-2015.html

    The lead author is Typhaine Guillemot, a graduate student at University of Franche-Comté:

    https://chrono-environnement.univ-fcomte.fr/spip.php?article1387&lang=fr

    Guess what? She does not doubt AGW. In fact, she writes:

    “In order to compare the impacts of recent and past agropastoral activities on South Greenlandic ecosystems (change in vegetation cover, soil stability and water trophic change) and to characterize the transition to an anthropogenic landscape, we have analyzed biomarkers preserved in a sedimentary core retrieved from Lake Igaliku [61º00’ N, 45º26’ W, 15 m (a.s.l)], and spanning the last two millennia.”

    https://chrono-environnement.univ-fcomte.fr/spip.php?article1387&lang=fr

    Emphasis: “TO CHARACTERIZE THE TRANSITION TO AN ANTHROPOGENIC LANDSCAPE….”

    So she certainly does not doubt AGW. She studies the past.

    As usual, you have cherry-picked just one instance of something at some specific somewhere that was influenced by natural variability.

    And, of course, natural variability does not disprove AGW. NATURAL VARIABILITY CONTINUES *with* AGW.

    Here is more of your nonsense: the phenomena studied in this paper happened BEFORE THE AGE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE:

    “They occurred especially during rapid climate changes (RCC)
    such as the Middle to Late Holocene transition around 2250 BC, the Sub-boreal/Subatlantic transition around 700 BC and the Little Ice Age (LIA) between AD 1300 and AD 1900, separated by cycles of 1500 years and driven by solar forcing.”

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/5401/2015/cpd-11-5401-2015.pdf

    So, in fact, this study doesn’t look AT ALL at modern change, but change centuries ago.

    Which (OF COURSE!) happened by natural variability, since there was little-to-no anthropogenic change back then.

    This is very typical of your machinations and lies, Gosselin.

    I fully expect that looking into all the other papers you list — which, of course, your mindless followers here would never do — would uncover a great deal in the same vein.

    This is, in fact, a great example of how deniers like you purposely mislead, and how you can’t trust a single word they write down — they will lie and not think twice about it.

    You should ashamed of yourself, Gosselin, for writing such scientific tripe and for completely failing to do even the smallest amount of verification on whatever some denier feeds you.

    1. yonason

      “…there was little-to-no anthropogenic change back then.” – David Appell

      Just-like-today, except that it was naturally warm enough to settle there for several centuries, until the perfectly natural re-freeze that killed them off.

      Today every climate hiccup is blamed on AGW, but, because of the many variations that can’t be explained, they are having to deal with natural variation.

      There is nothing misleading about contrasting how they attribute past change to nature, while pretending that modern change is primarily due to AGW. If anything, it puts their (and your) dissembling into a proper perspective.

      If anyone should be ashamed, it’s you.

      1. David Appell

        “There is nothing misleading about contrasting how they attribute past change to nature, while pretending that modern change is primarily due to AGW.”

        It’s a matter of forcings.

        Do you know what a global climate forcing is, and how they are determined?

        1. AndyG55

          Do YOU know anything about climate forcing..

          NO.. you don’t.

          You are a LOW-END science fiction writer..

          A NON-entity.. a worthless piece of flotsam.

        2. yonason

          Go ahead, D.A., ‘splain it to us. I’m sure it will be worth reading, and commenting on.

        3. yonason

          “It’s a matter of forcings.” – David Appell

          OH! I see, like when the world reached a tipping point in the past when CO2 concentrations were 10 to 15 times what they are today?
          http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg

          Sorry, David, but the temps were all over the map in the past, and were totally uncorrelated with temperature.

          Even though temperatures were several degrees hotter than today, there was no runaway. And they did not have a dreadful effect on the biosphere. In fact the first “hot” spell was during the Cambrian, you know, when nearly all known forms of complex life first appeared in the Geological Record. Oh, yeah, that was a real disaster, NOT.

          And you want us to believe it’s going to be “worse” now, with vastly lower CO2 coupled with some mythical “forcings” that don’t ever appear to have ever existed before? Come on, David. Get real.

          1. yonason

            Replace “…totally uncorrelated with temperature.”
            with
            “…totally uncorrelated with CO2.”

    2. yonason

      Gotta hand it to you and sod. You catch a boot, and call it a whale.

      And, as I wrote to sod above, we aren’t saying (at least I’m not) that they are now skeptics, but that they are forced to deal with the skeptic position, even to the point of having to admit that natural forcings “SUBSTANTIALLY MASK” the alleged AGW component. (‘we may not see it, but we know it’s there’).

    3. Colorado Wellington

      I’m happy David Appell acknowledges his intellectual heritage so openly. It’s good to see him meticulously applying the Party approved methodology of the 1948/1949 World Congress of Intellectuals in Defense of Peace and the World Committee of Partisans for Peace.

      The imperialist deniers of historical truths must be denounced and rooted out.

    4. nightspore

      Of course, I ignored any papers by Willie Soon, who has been shown to produce the science asked by whomever pays him, has been disgraced, and whom no one takes at all seriously.

      I see that D. Appell has studied at the Willi Münzenberg School of Disinformation. Among other lessons learned there is never failing to repeat vicious canards even when they’re not really relevant. Soon’s supposedly dubious financial backing has been thoroughly vetted and the story was found to be the kind of distortion of normal, real-life transactions that is typical of the Left. In the case I know about, alarmists tried to smear him for faithfully following a stipulated agreement (with the Smithsonian). It says something about the quality of alarmist arguments to see this business trotted out once more. (Then again, as one writer has said, the Left never gives up trying to rewrite history. Perhaps this explains this latest attempt to keep the aspersions afloat.)

  21. Impossible To Ignore – In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
  22. 2015: Et år med ekstremt mye realistisk klimaforskning | Klimarealistene

    […] Listen er samlet av Kenneth Richard og ble først publisert på notrickszone.com.  […]

  23. Knutsen

    How many % is that of the total climate articles 2015? I guess a lot more than 3%.

    1. yonason

      Could be, given the intensity at which the Warmist Faux-Fact Factory churns out worthless junk.

  24. juenger

    who is Kenneth Richard ? Is he :

    Kenneth R. Richards

    Professor

    Print-Quality Photo
    Phone: (812) 855-4944Email: kenricha@indiana.eduRoom Number: SPEA 410L

    Education
    •Ph.D., Public Policy, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1997
    •J.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1997
    •B.S.C.E., Environmental Engineering, Technological Institute, Northwestern University, 1983
    •M.S.C.E., Urban and Regional Planning, Northwestern University, 1983
    •B.A., Botany and Chemistry, Duke University, 1979

    Courses
    Domestic Environmental Policy
    Public Management Economics

    Biography

    Kenneth Richards is professor of environmental economics and policy and an affiliated professor of law at the IU Maurer School of Law. Since joining IU in 1996, Richards has taught nearly 30 different courses including public law and administration, environmental and cost-benefit economics, sustainability, and energy and climate change law.

    Richards is an affiliated faculty member at the Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. He has held appointments as a James Martin Senior Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin School and a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, both at the University of Oxford. Richards recently served as Musim Mas Chair in Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School.

    Richards’ work as an economist includes positions with the Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richards was recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for his role as a research scientist in “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize” when the IPCC won the honor in 2007. Richards wrote the U.S. government’s first position paper on the choice of policy instruments for climate change policy in 1989, co-authored the first detailed cost analysis of terrestrial carbon sequestration in 1990, and managed the development of the guidelines for the 1605(b) voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program in 1994. He also served as national energy planner for the Cook Islands from 1984 to 1986.

    Wolfgang Juenger

  25. Hiatus of geen hiatus: dat is de vraag - Climategate.nl

    […] kritische artikel staat overigens niet op zichzelf. In 2015 verschenen zo’n 250 artikelen die kritiek bevatten op AGW, en dit jaar zijn er al bijna 50 […]

  26. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #216 | Watts Up With That?