485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

‘Consensus’ Science

Takes A Hit In 2017

During 2017,  485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 485 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability, as clearly shown in the first 150 graphs (from 2017) on this list.

N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, the 485 papers compiled in 2017 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions.  The papers do not do more than that.   Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.

Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)


(Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).  

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate (121)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (15)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (14)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (7)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (18)
Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (3)
Miscellaneous (7)

Scientists: We Don’t Understand (3)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (33)
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)

105 responses to “485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. CO2isLife

    Scientific Fascism; How to Manufacture a Consensus
    One of the most absurd claims is that there is a scientific “consensus” on something as infinitely complex as the causes of climate change. There may be an actual consensus on the existence of the greenhouse gas effect, something that can be experimentally demonstrated, but a consensus that CO2, a trace gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere,

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/11/20/scientific-fascism-how-to-manufacture-a-concensus/

    NOAA and NASA Admit the Sun NOT CO2 is Causing the Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/noaa-and-nasa-admit-the-sun-not-co2-is-causing-the-arctic-sea-ice-to-disappear/

    No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/no-joke-during-record-cold-spell-the-guardian-warns-of-global-warming/

    CO2 is 33% Higher and Temperatures are Currently Making 100 Yr Record LOWS
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/co2-is-nearly-33-higher-and-temperatures-are-currently-making-100-yr-record-lows/

    Prosecute Slimate Clientists for False Statements and Defrauding the Public
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/prosecute-slimate-clientists-for-false-statements-and-defrauding-the-public/

  2. SebastianH

    I find it interesting that you pivoted to being skeptical about “climate alarm”. If it makes you feel better, you won’t be called a denier for that position. We can happily debate the alarming part of what’s to come without violating basic laws of physics/math 😉

    Regarding your point …

    N1: The IPCC position is that natural mechanisms would have caused a slight cooling in the recent past. Instead it warmed significantly. The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2. Note: this doesn’t mean that the Sun has zero influence.

    N2: I find this a rather silly argument. Something of equal proportions happening in the past doesn’t mean that the current instance is happening for the same reasons or that we should shrug it off as if it isn’t alarming. If we get to see a WW3 you won’t find it unremarkable either, just because there have been previous World Wars, right? Especially it it happens for entirely different reasons than before.

    N3: Not really my perception. So far the models are pretty good. Of course, improvements can always be made and I am looking forward to better and better versions.

    projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

    You seem to believe there are some large unknowns that could completely change the models. Isn’t it more likely that the large unknowns have become “knowns” first and science is just adding more detail as we progress? You also seem to believe that predicting non-linear systems is some kind of magic. A pendulum is a non-linear system too, one which can be predicted pretty well and I am sure you can intuitively describe where the pendulum will be at a certain point in time. As intuitive as predicting that additional energy in the climate system will have an effect too.

    N4:

    whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

    So growth without limits? What about acidification? Desertification? Increased use of water and nutrients/nitrogen by plants exposed to higher CO2 levels?

    A1:

    leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

    You still don’t quite understand that math, do you? When you have 1 kg of 50°C water and add 0.5 kg of 80°C (1) water and then 0.5 kg of 40°C (2) water, you’ll end up with 2 kg of 55°C water. Can you calculate the correct percentages of the temperature change that both additions caused in this example? Hint, it is not 0% for (2) and it is not 100% for (1), but the some has to be 100%.

    A2: It’s debatable whether or not the consequences are dangerous, but it could be very costly and as often as you guys argue against the high costs of transitioning to a sustainable energy future, this should be something you should feel equally about, shouldn’t it?

    A3: Are you really hoping for that wildcard, surprise variable that nobody has considered yet to change everything? That’s like standing on the rails watching a train approach and hoping that it might derail before it hits you instead of doing something about your situation. If you want to debate the off chance that the train will derail, fine … but can we do that not standing on the rails?

    A4:

    he proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

    Look, nothing we do will be environmentally-friendly. But we can make it more sustainable than the system we use today and why not start doing that now? Do you think more fossil fuel is safe, effective and environmentally-friendly? We could talk about fusion reactors, but I doubt that they will be ready soon enough (if at all) to be a viable alternative to “covering” Earth in solar panels and wind farms. Can you quantify that “cover” for us? E.g. will it be more or less than the area we covered with asphalt in order to be able to fast travel almost anywhere?

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “I find it interesting that you pivoted to being skeptical about “climate alarm”.” – SebH, clueless activist

      There is a world of difference between shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater when there is a fire, and telling everyone they need to panic and squander their resources now, because a few years from now there might be a fire in the theater.

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)
        1. AndyG55

          The whole AGW AGENDA is a great danger to human progress and the future of the planet.

          If it succeeds, the whole world will be back in the Dark Ages under draconian one-world bureaucratic socialist totalitarian rule, self-incentive will die, manufacturing will grind to a halt, food supplies will disappear.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            N. Korea and Venezuela on steroids.

          2. SebastianH

            Quite an imagination you’ve got there. Have you considered writing scripts for Hollywood catastrophe movies?

            @yonason:
            Um, so you find it better to get notified of a fire in the theater when it is too late instead of being warned that it will happen if that kid in the front continues to play with matches?

          3. yonason (from my cell phone)

            That “kid in the front” with the matches is you, SebH. YOU and your ignorance, arrogance and deceit are the problem.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Your 1st grade math skills are most impressive, SebH. Good Job

    3. AndyG55

      “The best current explanation is the forcing from GHGs such as CO2. ”

      For which, as seb and Jan and consistently shown, there is absolutely ZERO empirical proof for any warming from CO2.

      Their manic evasion tactics are getting very comical. 🙂

    4. AndyG55

      “N2: I find this a rather silly argument”

      Totally irrelevant to any rational discussion.

      You need to prove something out of the ordinary is happening… IT ISN’T, just a slight beneficial warming from solar and ocean effects.

      1. SebastianH

        Science doesn’t proof anything. It’s time you learn that basic principle …

        1. AndyG55

          “Science doesn’t proof anything.”

          Still the mindless evasion and blank empty MESS that is seb.

          Certainly the NON-science you put forward proves absolutely nothing….

          It really is EMPTY, ZERO-EVIDENCE non-science.

        2. AndyG55

          Great to see that you KNOW there is ZERO scientific proof for the fallacy of CO2 warming our convective atmosphere.

        3. AndyG55

          Poor seb, has now just confirmed that nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

          Its just a baseless piece of propaganda fantasy.

          Just like CO2 warming the atmosphere is baseless fantasy.

    5. AndyG55

      “N3: Not really my perception. So far the models are pretty good”

      Roflmao.. models are spectacularly BAD. !!

      They keep having to readjust the starting point as the models drift away from reality.

    6. AndyG55

      “N4: So growth without limits? What about acidification? Desertification?”

      Unfortunately the highest likely CO2 level is 600-800ppm, so growth will always be limited by CO2 deficiency.

      Acidification
      roflmao.. Buffering by HUGE deposits of carbonate rocks. Corals etc evolved when aCO2 was MUCH higher.

      Desertification.
      roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening. just another anti-science yap.

      Increased use of water and nutrients/nitrogen.

      Increased CO2 allows more efficient use of water. Proper use of nutrient nitrogen fixing plants and fertilisers will only further enhance plant grow.

      So.. as ALWAYS, everything you point to is ARRANT NONSENSE based on your total lack of understanding of most facets of science. You are basically WRONG on everything you pretend to know.

      1. SebastianH

        Acidification
        roflmao.. Buffering by HUGE deposits of carbonate rocks. Corals etc evolved when aCO2 was MUCH higher.

        They might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening. Besides, corals are not the main concern of this problem.

        Desertification.
        roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening. just another anti-science yap.

        Glad you are having fun, but can you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.

        Increased CO2 allows more efficient use of water. Proper use of nutrient nitrogen fixing plants and fertilisers will only further enhance plant grow.

        Data suggest that quality of food is decreasing if you don’t take special care of a plant in a high CO2 level world.

        You are basically WRONG on everything you pretend to know.

        It would be nice if you at least could provide sources when you are ranting in the comment section.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          “Acidification” CANNOT occur until the pH of the ocean has been neutralized! There isn’t sufficient “fossil” fuel to ever accomplish even the neutralization, let alone acidification. Ocean pH is highly variable, with location, temperature and depth among the most important factors. The pH range is over one pH unit, so I am more than highly skeptical of anyone claiming to have measured a change of a few hundredths of the natural variability locally, and extrapolating to the “world’s oceans.”

          In short, it’s complete nonsense, especially sense past whopping [CO2]’s would have already destroyed all life as we know it, if the warmunistas were correct, which they are obviously NOT!

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Oops, I neglected to mention that ocean pH is notoriously difficult to measure (impossible, actually). There are techniques to get repeatable numbers, but they are indirect and require great skill. Yet they are still estimates, not actual measurements.

            The only people who parrot the ocean “acidification” myth are those who are ignorant of the facts, or those whose intent is to deceive.

        2. yonason (from my cell phone)

          “Glad you are having fun, but can you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim [that desertification isn’t occurring] is true?” – SebH

          This HAS been posted about already. Why are you STILL ignorant of it????!!!!!!
          https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

          You tediously, tendetiously and boorishly keep repeating nonsense you must by now know is false, like that and “ocean acidification.”
          wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/new-paper-debunks-acidification-scare-finds-warming-increases-ph/amp/

          How do you live with yourself?

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Kenneth Richard 5. January 2018 at 6:51 AM

            I find it impossible to believe that anyone can be THAT wrong by accident.

          2. AndyG55

            “I find it impossible to believe that anyone can be THAT wrong by accident.”

            BINGO.!!

            seb is proving to be a base level troll, totally MISINFORMED as well as being a compulsive LIAR.

        3. AndyG55

          “It would be nice if you at least could provide sources when you are ranting in the comment section.”

          Would be nice if you ever read anything else apart from your own posts and weren’t perpetually, wilfully IGNORANT

          Everything I have said is KNOWN, PROVEN and has been discussed on this forum many time

          UNLIKE the fallacy that CO2 causes warming, which you keep running away from.

          Please TRY to keep up with actual science, instead of living in your own little fantasy basement.

        4. Steve

          Yeah just finishing off plucking close to the last of my Sweet Cherry and Gross Lisse tomato crop this season. Max yield and sweet as tomatoes . All the neighbours are jealous but I kept them quiet by giving them plenty.
          I even gave some to my Greeny next door neighbours.
          I also support their use of solar panels via government waste of my taxes to subsidise their panels.
          This really pisses me off because all I did to grow the crop was use good old mother nature. Its called Sun, Water and Earth.
          SebH …take note!!

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Ever grow Carbon, or the Black Brandywine? Another favorite of mine is Sara Black. And for salads there’s “Black Cherry.”

            If you have never tried “Cherry Falls” (not a black), you might want to consider it. https://www.totallytomato.com/P/00184/Cherry+Falls+Tomato

            (Second crop is iffy and not as good as first with this determinate, but it’is usually the earliest, and always among the best tasting.)

            Enjoy!

        5. tom0mason

          seb,

          The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
          Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

          Watch and listen a simple video even you might understand.
          https://www.youtube.com/embed/zOwHT8yS1XI

          1. AndyG55

            It would absolute amazes me if seb wasn’t aware of these facts. It would show a case of utter and complete wilful ignorance and factual denial..

            Although, I suspect he is well aware, and is just continuing with his childish, attention-seeking trolling.

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            The only German Greenie I’m interested in!
            https://www.totallytomato.com/P/00043/Aunt+Rubys+German+Green+Tomato

        6. Squidly

          They might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening. Besides, corals are not the main concern of this problem

          BS !!! .. 100% pure and unadulterated BS!

          Our oceans cover more than 72% of the Earth’s surface at an average depth of more the 4 kilometers. Just the top 3 meters of ocean contain more CO2 than all of the atmosphere above it! … you could dissolved all of the atmospheric CO2 into our oceans and you would not lower the pH by even 0.00001 mole fraction! .. you would be very hard pressed to even be able to measure the change in pH which would be less than 0.00001 mole fraction! ..

          Next to AGW, ocean “acidification” is the biggest lie of all! … It is physically impossible for atmospheric CO2 to lower the pH of our oceans .. even setting aside the absolutely enormous surface area of lime deposits (3x’s greater than all of the surface area of the planet) in constant contact with that sea water that buffer any such attempts. If not for submariner volcanism, our oceans would probably have pH around 10+ and be virtually uninhabitable.

          Holy crap .. this Sebastion idiot just takes the cake. I have seen stupid and dense people on the Internet about this subject, but just wow! .. This guy doesn’t know when to quit digging.

  3. Steve

    6.00 am bondi weather report
    21 deg water temp
    1 foot waves
    low tide
    earth going down!!!!!!
    5 surfers out
    50 people walking the beach early.
    Current temp 18.3 C

    Hahahahahahahhaha….whats not to like?

  4. tom0mason

    ‘Climate science™’ in the main avoids being scientifically valid by using only a theory that is in the main not falsifiable. This mere speculation (or near theory) is untested against validated methods and verified observation in the real world, it is only tested in a poorly made computer generated virtual world. There has been no test, or observation of CO2 warming the atmosphere, or it ‘holding the heat’, or any other speculated property of this gases so called greenhouse effect — not observed on this real planet’s atmosphere. It is all just a speculation with a deficient virtual earth model as evidence.

    As main skeptical position N(2) says “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”
    AGW advocates may sniffily dismiss this point, but at least 200 million people in the USA have just be subjected to some of the coldest temperatures of modern times — that is remarkable and for many unprecedented in their lifetimes.
    Those increasingly isolated consensus clique of well paid AGW advocates in academia, who try vainly to asert their authority in this field, will now have an even tougher time convincing the US public. And so it should be. Out with the old and in with the new, hopefully Mr. Trump will get the message about making ALL climate models open software projects for the good of science and computing. Software code, data, and methods free to be inspected by anyone on the planet. A worthwhile gift from the freedom loving USA to the world.

    Scientific observations show that the sun dictates the general trend of our climate and not the innocent gas CO2. Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!

    1. SebastianH

      but at least 200 million people in the USA have just be subjected to some of the coldest temperatures of modern times — that is remarkable and for many unprecedented in their lifetimes.

      I see, by that logic would you agree that Antarctica has lost ice dramatically when last summer marked the lowest ice extent ever measured in most lifetimes of those of who are involved measuring this?

      hopefully Mr. Trump will get the message about making ALL climate models open software projects for the good of science and computing.

      Isn’t the data already public domain when paid for by the government in the US? Code that is used to adjust the data or model something is also freely available most of the time, isn’t it?

      Or do you suggest that there should be some Linux-like project on Github where everyone can participate on furthering climate science where it overlaps with computer science? I can get behind that, but I doubt Trump – I don’t read books – wants to do that if non of his advisors manages to somehow make a pretty presentation with lots of pictures for him to stear him in that direction 😉

      Scientific observations show that the sun dictates the general trend of our climate and not the innocent gas CO2.

      You mean like the motor is dictating how fast a car drives? The innocent gas also named atmosphere has nothing to do with that? Never experienced headwinds in your life?

      Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!

      You must be interpreting the graphs wrong.

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.43/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:-0.13/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12

      You are right, I can see no increase at all since the 90s … oh wait.

      1. AndyG55

        “Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!”

        Well, NO.

        Between 1980 and 1997 there was NO WARMING at all

        https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

        Any so-called linear trend is PURELY a facet of the use of the 1998 -2001 El Nino event.

        Same as from 2001 – 2015.. NO WARMING

        https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

        There is actually NO CO2 warming signature at all in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

        And as seb has convincingly shown with his ABJECT INABILITY and squirming, avoiding the issue….

        there is ZERO empirical proof that CO2 causes any warming at all of our convective atmosphere..

        … its a NON-EVENT, a FALLACY, a MYTH.

        1. AndyG55

          ““Only in the late 1990s did temperatures track CO2 levels, a mere coincidence, and since then NOTHING!””

          Only tracked somewhat in GISS et al. because those were deliberately adjust to do so.

          The “Adjustments™” have been shown to have a near perfect correlation with CO2 rise.

          https://s19.postimg.org/z4a5119ir/adjustments_vs_CO2.png

      2. AndyG55

        “You mean like the motor is dictating how fast a car drives? The innocent gas also named atmosphere has nothing to do with that? Never experienced headwinds in your life?”

        ??????????

        And yet another anti-science, irrelevant and meaningless seb analogy.

      3. tom0mason

        Seb,

        Yes dear boy you are just wrong. 🙂

  5. oebele bruinsma

    Interesting but useless exchange of opinions between science (data) and religion (values). SebH (I do not like people hiding behind acronyms) is a firm believer in man-made global warming so let’s leave him there and concentrate on “global cooling”.
    Happy New Year to all.

    1. tom0mason

      oebele bruinsma, thank-you for the reminder.

      And a happy and prosperous new year to you.

  6. AndyG55

    Rather OT,

    But the current energy watch (9:30pm) for Australia show the effect of the South Australia Tesla battery

    Qld and TAs wind, working well. 🙂

    Of course, gas and coal, nowhere to be seen 😉

    https://s19.postimg.org/9hniof64j/Aust_energy_5.1.18.png

    1. AndyG55

      oops, data is at 8:30pm. so WA still has some small solar.

  7. Vincenzo Ferretti

    https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

    What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

    This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.

    A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:

    They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.

    1. The Other Brad
      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        I had typed mine in already before yours was posted, so when I came back later I just hit “post comment” without rechecking if any had by that time beaten me to it.

    2. AndyG55

      You do know that Snopes is now just another far-left propaganda site, don’t you Vincent?

      It made its name debunking urban trivia, where is should have stayed, because science is not in its realm of expertise. I would not trust that they/she have fact-checked or even contacted who they/she say they/she have.

    3. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Snopes? Yeah, NO!
      https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

      And before you complain about my source, unless you can demonstrate that they have screwed up as badly as Snopes, I don’t want to hear it.

      1. HansJ

        Yes, but that “debunking” deals with political fact checking, NOT science. Plus it amounts to a large ad hoiminem attack rather than an assessment of the skill with which the author debunked political claims.

        You also seem to equate the site with a single person, presumably Kim Capria who is the main person being “debunked” by dailycaller, but the article in question is written by someone different, so this mostly ad hominem attack is completely irrelevant to the argument.

        And yeah, dailycaller is not a reliable source anyway. They are attacking Snopes because snopes regularly debunks their stuff. They can’t counter the actual debunking so they attack the debunker as liberally biased (which she may be, but is she right in what she actually writes?).

  8. Kenneth Richard

    Yes, “fact-checker” loses its meaning when it’s only activists with an agenda deciding on the facts.

    That whole article is effectively one large straw man argument.

    NoTricksZone never claimed that the 400+ papers assert that “global warming is a myth”. That was the Breitbart headline from back in October when the list had reached 400. 85 more have been added since. The intended effect of that headline phrasing — clickbait — was realized: 35,000 shares and retweets back then.

    See the detailed introduction in the article for what these papers represent, or do.

    1. RAH

      Breitbart and Snoops have been in an on going war for some time now. Ever since Breitbart exposed who they are and started questioning where they get their funding from.

      IMO “fact checkers” came into being to back the general media as they lost their influence. If what we call “journalists” now were actually practicing journalism and following the evidence seeking and reporting what it reveals then there would be no need for “fact checkers” to have ever been created to help support the general media. Snoops lies and obfuscates just like the media does when it comes to anything political but proclaims it’s self a “fact checker”.

  9. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | Un hobby...

    […] K Richard, January 4, 2017 in […]

  10. Richard Mercer

    In the one year+ from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, –
    there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
    Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW – [That’s just over 1/100 of 1%]
    —–

    Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
    24 of them reject AGW.
    Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW – [That’s 1/10 of 1%]
    —–

    Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.

    * 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
    * 78 rejected AGW – 1.9%

    98% of the authors of those 4,011 papers said they and their papers agree with AGW

    ———-

    1. AndyG55

      “endorsed AGW”

      NO, they didn’t “endorse AGW”…

      … they went with the meme and MINDLESSLY ACCEPTED IT so as to get their paper published easily.

      That is NOT SCIENCE.

  11. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change | ValuBit

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  12. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed 'Consensus' on Climate Change | LEXYRED

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  13. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change - Telzilla

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  14. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change – Live President Donald Trump Popularity Polls

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  15. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change – Fake News Matters

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  16. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change - Patriot Advisor

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  17. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change - Allsorce.com

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  18. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change – 4sixand2

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]

  19. 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  20. 2 – 485 climate papers in 2017 not supporting the consensus position
  21. Deconstruction Of The Critical YouTube Response To Our 400+ ‘Skeptical’ Papers Compilation

    […] the YouTube response to the late October Breitbart headline that claimed the 400 papers (now 485) compiled here at NoTricksZone say that “Global Warming Is A […]

  22. Rise and Fall of CAGW | Science Matters

    […] Despite this, every year there are hundreds of new research papers published challenging CAGW.  Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone has done yeoman work compiling and summarizing and linking to such studies. His most recent review is  485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]

  23. Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change - California Political Review

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some […]

  24. Chris Frey

    To SebastianH and the excellent replies of Kenneth Richard:
    To me, the layman, the thing is very simple: SebH does really mean that our weather (climate being nothing but the “sum” of weather) is dependent ONLY of one single parameter, of which there even is so little an amount in the air. We just have to turn this parameter’s knob a little to get the weather we wish.
    Everyone thinking so is… (well, I don’t want this comment to be blocked). I admire Kenneth Richards, of whom I translated many articles for the website of the EIKE (not this one, though) because of his patience with an obious … who permanently rapes common sense.

    Chris Frey

    1. P Gosselin

      No one here really takes seb so seriously. We do however appreciate the entertainment value he delivers.

  25. RAH

    Nick Stokes is pulling his usual stuff on this topic over at WUWT.

  26. Global Warming? - Page 203 - PeachParts Mercedes ShopForum

    […] all you'd like. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm __________________ I'm sick of .sig […]

  27. Der ,97%-Klima­konsens‘ beginnt zu zerfallen – mit 485 neuen Studien allein 2017, welche ihn in Frage stellen – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

    […] Kenneth Richard fand heraus, dass im Laufe des Jahres 2017 mindestens 485 Studien veröffentlicht worden sind, die auf die eine […]

  28. The Rise and Fall of the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory | Principia Scientific International

    […] Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone has done yeoman work compiling and summarizing and linking to such studies. His most recent review is  485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]

  29. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm (http://notrickszone.com) – The dark side of Agenda 21

    […] 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm […]

  30. Hannah

    There are so many things wrong here… but I’ll just mention one of them! There are a number of environmental disadvantages to increased atmospheric CO2. The claim that increased CO2 promotes crop yields is misleading in that plants may grow larger (and that growth eventually levels out and ceases), but increased atmospheric CO2 inhibits plants’ abilities to uptake other critical nutrients (including nitrogen and phosphorus); thus resulting in plant nutrient deficiency and a deficiency for organisms that consume those plants. (Source: http://za2uf4ps7f.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rising+atmospheric+CO2+and+carbon+sequestration+in+forests&rft.jtitle=Frontiers+in+Ecology+and+the+Environment&rft.au=Beedlow%2C+Peter+A&rft.au=Tingey%2C+David+T&rft.au=Phillips%2C+Donald+L&rft.au=Hogsett%2C+William+E&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.pub=Ecological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=1540-9295&rft.eissn=1540-9309&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=315&rft.epage=322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890%2F1540-9295%282004%29002%5B0315%3ARACACS%5D2.0.CO%3B2&rft.externalDocID=FEE200426315).

    1. AndyG55

      “but increased atmospheric CO2 inhibits plants’ abilities to uptake other critical nutrients (including nitrogen and phosphorus”

      RUBBISH.

      CO2 enhances the nitrogen and phosphorus release in the soil, making it more available for plants. CO2 does not slow the rate of uptake unless the incompetent researcher doesn’t make enough available.

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/jan/a1.php

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/jan/a3.php

      I have a friend that uses CO2 in greenhouses, and his fruit and vege have been measured as having a HIGHER nutrient content than normally grown fruit and vege, as well as being bigger, more succulent and tastier.

      But then, he knows what he is doing, and apparently the MSU non-farmers, don’t.

    2. AndyG55

      Hannah, It should also be noted that the paper you are linking to has absolutely NOTHING to do with nutrients in crops or fruit.

      It is about carbon sequestration in forests.

      Ie , you don’t have the VAGUEST CLUE what you are talking about. !!

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002%5B0315:RACACS%5D2.0.CO;2/abstract

  31. Nästan 500 skeptiska artiklar under 2017 - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
  32. Socialist Simpleton: New York Mayor Sues Oil Companies Over Bad Weather | Headline of the Day

    […] recent survey of climate change literature for 2017 revealed that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers […]

  33. 97% Climate Consensus’ Starts to Crumble – Gaia Gazette

    […] Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]

  34. Paleoclimate | Pearltrees

    […] core location and regional ocean circulation. Abstract Data availability. 485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm. During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that […]

  35. NetNewsLedger - EPA should ignore anti-coal activists at listening sessions

    […] his point of view. On January 10, Breitbart News Network reported that “Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close