Rapidly Ballooning Body Of Doubt …Over 500 Papers From Past 2 Years Cast Shadow Over “Consensus” Climate Science!

Reader Kenneth Richards has been very busy.

Not long ago he supplied a list of 250 papers published in 2015 casting doubt on the consensus climate science, read here. Many of them confirm that natural factors are the main drivers of climate change.

Shortly after that he supplied a list of 50 similar papers appearing just in the first two months of this year alone. See here.

248 papers in 2014

Today he provides a compilation of 248 papers from 2014 that casts huge doubt on the allegedly “consensus-backed” climate science. In total we have now seen over 500 papers over the past 2 years contesting much of what the UN IPCC has been preaching.

Moreover Kenneth Richards writes in an e-mail that he has found another 12 papers to add to the 2015 list of 250 we mentioned earlier, bringing that total to about 260. He informs me that he is going to take the time to compile a list for 2013.

70 papers already this year alone

Finally he notes that the list for 2016 has already reached 70 in number.

Perhaps someone needs to send these long lists of peer-reviewed scientific publications to Prof. Naomi Oreskes, an activist historian who has somehow managed to convince herself that the science is settled and over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Her e-mail address: oreskes@fas.harvard.edu.

Readers are of course welcome to send these lists to elected officials so that they may become aware that climate science is not settled, that natural factors are in fact dominating, and that dire IPCC projections of warming and ice melt are profoundly exaggerated. It is your democratic right and duty to do so.

The list of papers for 2014

The list of papers for 2015

The list of papers for 2016 (Jan-Feb)

Send the links or the entire list to your elected officials:

Contact your US senator

Contact your state representative

 

32 responses to “Rapidly Ballooning Body Of Doubt …Over 500 Papers From Past 2 Years Cast Shadow Over “Consensus” Climate Science!”

  1. Robin Pittwood

    Well done Kenneth Richards. And thanks Pierre for sharing with us. It is a great resource. It got me wondering though, how many papers have been written in the past two years stating that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. Then we could do an update on where the ‘consensus’ % is presently.

  2. yonason

    NOAA shows us the warming that’s there (slightly enhanced by “adjustmens”), but they neglect to show us the cooling that preceded it, because then we wouldn’t be worried by what is obviously a natural process.
    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
    (H/T – GREENIE WATCH)

    1. David Johnson

      Ha ha, like it, “famous study” You must be taking the mick out of her!

  3. sod

    Sorry, but which of these papers show what you claim they are showing?

    I doubt that even a single one will fit the criteria used by Oreskes in her famous study:

    “That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

    You need to look at the abstract and it needs to reject the consensus position. Papers that say that the sun also has some influence are utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Some people have learnt a bit since 2003, not you of course.

      1. AndyG55

        Poor sob still worships the Ork as a scientist. 😉

    2. Colorado Wellington

      That’s not consensus. This is consensus: *)

      100 Authors Against Einstein, Leipzig, R. Voigtländer, 1931
      ———-
      *) H/T Crocodile Dundee

  4. yonason

    OBJECTION OVERRULED

    “Papers that say that the sun also has some influence are utterly irrelevant to this discussion.” – sod

    You draw a line in the sand, and dare anyone to cross it. If they do, they are eliminated from the “discussion.” And when they don’t, out of a reasonable sense of self-preservation, you claim to have proven that none of them believe what many dare not say. That’s not science. That’s mob rule.

    Only emeritus professors, and some with tenure, can safely tell the truth.
    https://www.ihatethemedia.com/top-scientist-cites-global-warming-scam-in-resignation-letter
    But, since they are in the minority, you pretend they can be ignored, even though they are the most qualified in the field.

    Note that Pierre rightly said the papers “cast doubt,” NOT that they outright reject warmism. They do exactly what is claimed, they show AGW is not the only factor, a necessary first step in the process of showing it’s totally irrelevant.

    Your objection is overruled.

    1. AndyG55

      “Papers that say that the sun also has some influence”

      Not just SOME, but nearly all.

      The rest is local effects and data tampering.

      1. sod

        “The rest is local effects and data tampering.”

        The local effects and data tampering claim just suffered a shot to the knee by the new satellite data. you should look for some new excuses!

        1. AndyG55

          New satellite data shows, finally, the effect of the El Nino. The start of a short lived peak, which incidentally is not WARMTH, but less COLD in the Europe and Russian WINTER. (and I bet they are loving the respite)

          (or do you mean the erroneously adjusted RSS TMT?)

          Let’s see where it is in the mid-late part of the year.

          AGAIN you base your comments on massive IGNORANCE..

          But I expect that. No choice, do you have. !!

    2. sod

      “Note that Pierre rightly said the papers „cast doubt,“ NOT that they outright reject warmism. They do exactly what is claimed, they show AGW is not the only factor, a necessary first step in the process of showing it’s totally irrelevant. ”

      Then why would you want to send this list to Oreskes? she will check tze abstracts and point out that the all of them (that i have looked at so far) fail the test.

      1. yonason

        “…why would you want to send this list to Oreskes?” – sod

        LOL – Who says I want to send them to a science historian, who’s entire career is built on fraudulent claims, and who wouldn’t recognize real science if it bit her.

        Anthropologist Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1 percent did so explicitly. In 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.” Finally, Oreskes’ methodology assumes the abstracts of papers accurately reflect their findings, an assumption proven false by In-Uck Park et al. in research published in Nature in 2014.
        https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus

        There is no “consensus.”
        http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24484

        And as to your “The local effects and data tampering claim just suffered a shot to the knee by the new satellite data.”
        Nope.

        1. sod

          The Peiser paper about the consensus has been completely taken apart. His results do not contradict the finding of Oreskes at all. he has embarassed himself to the very core.

          Pesier had to admit that all but pone of his papers did not contraduict the consensus. He was 97% wrong.

          http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/30/peiser-admits-he-was-97-wrong/

          This list of 500 papers will suffer exactly the same fate, if anyone bothers to tak e a closer look.

          1. AndyG55

            For those who don’t know Media Watch, it is the FAR-FAR-FAR-LEFT anti-fact ABC joke.

            Absolutely NOTHING printed on Media Watch can be taken as written..

          2. Analitik

            And Tim Lambert himself is an inconsequential, self promoting moron who attempted to challenge Christopher Monckton on climate change in a debate back in 2010 and ended up looking like the idiot that he is

            The extent of Lambert’s self-delusion is that he thought he won the debate. You can judge for yourself as Lambert put the debate up on his youtube channel
            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLECB5DBAEB957FD5C

          3. AndyG55

            And you read Peiser actual email

            “I’m afraid that is not the case. The vast majority of abstracts in her sample do not deal with anthropogenic global warming at all.”

            Benny used ALL the article, the Ork, just a selected few.. where have we seen that scam before !!

            “Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the ‘consensus view.’ The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever”

            Again you try your deceit, little worm. !!

          4. DirkH

            ” His results do not contradict the finding of Oreskes at all.”

            The “finding” of Oreskes? She has never found out anything. What are you talking about? What should that be? She’s just a slander machine, she’s a stand up comedian. What’s her finding?

          5. DirkH

            And why am I asking a crazy person a question.
            Anyone who takes Oreskes seriously automatically disqualifieis himself from logical debate. You’re just a little Alinskyite water carrier.

          6. sod

            Not a single answer containing any sort of data.

            The Oreskes study is about a decade old. Plenty of time for people, to come out and point out that they were misrepresented. This did not happen.

            Plenty of time to make similar surveys with a completely different outcome. Did not happen.

            The consensus is real. You might be angry aboput Oreskes, but this is about all you have. Nothing of any substance.

      2. yonason

        A little more on Ms. Oreskes

        Judith Curry (a REAL climate scientist) writes this.
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/15/bankruptcy-of-the-merchants-of-doubt-meme/

        And she highly recommends this.
        https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/15/bankruptcy-of-the-merchants-of-doubt-meme/

        Oreskes is a propagandist, who’s views appear to be pure projection, with nothing substantial to back them up.

        1. sod

          Sorry, but the Oreskes comment by Curry starts by her admission, that she has not seen the film.

          That is about the same level of argument i find here.

          It ois a fact, that the same people worked to make false claims about tobacco.

          We simply know that the fossil fuel companies were using exactly the same tactics from the exxon files.

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

          Your position is in strong contradiction to the facts.

          1. AndyG55

            No sob, they had heard of the FARCE of CO2 based climate change……
            ….and rightly concluded it was a load of BOLLOCKS.

            There was NO PROOF then, just as there is NO PROOF now.

          2. AndyG55

            Surely not even a far-left with anti-intellect like you wouldn’t expect a world wide company to listen to unsubstantiated fabrications.

          3. Colorado Wellington

            Sorry, Andy, you are wrong. The far-left does expect companies to not only listen to their unsubstantiated fabrications but also to yield to their demands.

  5. Frederick Colbourne

    sod 9 says: “You need to look at the abstract and it needs to reject the consensus position.”

    And how many journals still accept papers in which the abstract is so bold?

    sod 9 says: “Papers that say that the sun also has some influence are utterly irrelevant to this discussion”

    Since the consensus position is that solar variability has negligible effect as a driver or drivers of climate change, I don’t see that your claim is tenable.

    There is a fairly substantial literature on the subject of global radiative imbalance. In 2011 Hansen and others revised their 2005 estimate of global energy imbalance from 0.85 Wm-2 to 0.58 Wm-2 based on later data. Loeb et al and Stephens et al. accepted Hansen’s estimates but for more recent years they revised his figure to 0.5 Wm-2.

    All of the above discuss radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and test against changes in ocean heat content.

    However, based on solar proxies:

    Steinhilber and others estimated that there has been an increase of 0.9 Watts per square meter in solar power since the Maunder Minimum 400 years ago. This suggests that the increase in solar power since the Maunder Minimum is greater than the total radiative imbalance derived from ocean heat content in 2012. A corollary of this claim would be that the climate change is caused almost entirely by solar variability.

    The Steinhilber et al abstract does not mention the consensus view at all:

    For the first time a record of total solar irradiance covering 9300 years is presented, which covers almost the entire Holocene. This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm2 In combination with climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.

    Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Fröhlich. “Total solar irradiance during the Holocene.” Geophysical Research Letters 36.19 (2009).
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf

    Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011): 13421-13449.
    Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.
    Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.

  6. yonason

    Ancient pagan religions had their temple prostitutes. Anthropogenic Climate Change has Al Bore and Namoi Oreskes.

  7. Segue C

    Yet despite the vanishing consensus and the ballooning doubt the Climatescam continues because the politicians are at the green trough. Greed knows no reason or principle.

    http://www.therebel.media/nocarbontax

  8. Rapidly Ballooning Body Of Doubt …Over 500 Papers From Past 2 Years Cast Shadow Over „Consensus“ Climate Science! – sentinelblog

    […] No Tricks Zone, by P […]

  9. Ken Gregory

    Where is the list of 70 papers for 2016? The link shows only 48.

  10. AndyG55

    Without…

    1. Mandated usage

    2. Massive subsidies

    3. Total removal of all environmental responsibility….

    RENEWABLES WOULD NOT EXIST

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #218 | Watts Up With That?