Skeptic Papers 2016

Climate science is supposed to be settled, right?

We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular.  We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore.  Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.

For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then.  Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic) sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“.  Humans now  heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels.   Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years.   Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next 33 years with our CO2 emissions.   The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities.  Again, this is all settled science.  Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree, or refuse to believe.

But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true?   What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC?   What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?

These are compelling questions.  Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing.  Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability.  Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.

Because of the enormous volume of new papers available that support a skeptical position on anthropogenic climate change alarm, the list of 500 scientific papers with links has been divided into 3 sections, each with its own page (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).   There are 68 graphs included in the volume, most of which are used to demonstrate that “hockey-stick” reconstructions of past temperatures and sea levels relative to today are not supported by available evidence.

Despite its size, this list will hopefully be user-friendly and easy to navigate as a bookmarkable reference volume due to its outline (below) and organized categorization.  Each paper has an embedded link under the authors’ name(s).

Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90 that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO, NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change).  This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change.  Apparently scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.

Click any of the 3 links below

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (236 papers)

Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (153 papers)

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate Modeling (112 papers)

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change

I. Solar Influence On Climate (132)
II. Natural Oceanic/Atmospheric Oscillation (ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO, AMOC) Influence On Climate (45)
III. Natural Ozone Variability and Climate (3)
IV. A Questionable To Weak Influence Of Humans, CO2 On Climate (11)
V. Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (4)
VI. Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (17)
VII. Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (14)
VII. Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Forcing (9)

Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

I. Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise/Mid-Holocene Sea Levels Meters Higher (34)
II. Warmer Holocene Climate, Non-Hockey Sticks (41)
III. No Net Regional Warming Since Early- Mid-20th Century (15)
IV. Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (D-O Events) (8)
V. The Uncooperative Cryosphere: Polar Ice Sheets, Sea Ice (34)
VI. Ocean Acidification? (14)
VII. Natural Climate Catastrophes – Without CO2 Changes (4)
VIII. Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (3)

Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate Modeling

I. Failing/Failed Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (10)
II. Climate Model Unreliability/Biases and the Pause (34)
III. Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Raises Crop Yields (10)
IV. Wind Turbines, Solar Utilities Endangering Wildlife (7)
V. Less Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (15)
VI. Heat Not Hazardous To Polar Bears, Humans (3)
VII. No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (3)
VIII. No Increasing Trends In Drought Frequency, Severity (7)
IX. Urban Surfaces Cause (Artificial) Warming (4)
X. ‘Settled’ Science Dismantled (3)
XI. Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Humans (3)
XII. Fires, Anthropogenic Climate Change Disconnect (5)
XIII. Miscellaneous (4)
XIV. Scientists: We Don’t Know (4)



16 responses to “Skeptic Papers 2016”

  1. Tony Thomas The Cream of Our Climate Croppers | RUTHFULLY YOURS

    […] fact, more than 130 peer-reviewed papers hostile to the IPCC  dogma have been published this year alone, and 280 last year. I don’t notice botanists and  conductive-polymer experts claiming that […]

  2. Tony Thomas: The Cream of the Climate Croppers | Tallbloke's Talkshop

    […] fact, more than 130 peer-reviewed papers hostile to the IPCC  dogma have been published this year alone, and 280 last year. I don’t notice botanists and  conductive-polymer experts claiming that […]

  3. The Cream of Our Climate Croppers | No B-S here (I hope)

    […] fact, more than 130 peer-reviewed papers hostile to the IPCC  dogma have been published this year alone, and 280 last year. I don’t notice botanists and  conductive-polymer experts claiming that […]

  4. Pug

    How do we know that these papers are hostile to the global warming ‘dogma’? Have you read and understood them all? What do they say that refutes global warming?

  5. “Already 240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone Show the “97% Climate Consensus” Is A Fantasy” – An Outsider's Sojourn II

    […] This includes 240 papers published during the first half of 2016, as shown here. […]

  6. Climate Apocalypse Cult-Ideology Drives Green Energy Disaster | al fin next level

    […] 240 scientific papers sceptical of climate apocalypse published during first 6 months of 2016 […]

  7. 240 trabalhos científicos derrubam “consenso” sobre o catastrofismo climático | IPCO

    […] primeiro semestre deste ano  foram publicados em jornais acadêmicos 240 trabalhos científicos, revistos por pares (peer-review), pondo em dúvida o “consenso” do “aquecimento global” […]

  8. 1000 A.d Apocalypse Europe Last Year –

    […] Skeptic Papers 2016 – P Gosselin – Papers Supporting a Skeptical-of-the-Consensus Position for 2016. 240 total papers (January-June) Solar Influence on Climate (43) Yamakawa et al., 2016 […]

  9. ”Climate Experts” Obsessed With CO2, Ignored Remaining Universe Of Factors - Principia Scientific International

    […] What’s interesting is that if the poor management of wildlife (particularly reducing grazing herds of animals) has led to half of the 20th century climate change, and the oceans and solar activity have played significant roles as well – as a large body of science shows – then there really isn’t much left to be chalked up to CO2. Increasingly it is becoming obvious that some climate scientists have obsessed with CO2 while ignoring the remaining universe of factors – see here, here, here and here. […]

  10. 4 nuovi studi trovano un collegamento tra attività solare, cicli naturali oceanici e clima - E temperature più calde durante il 1700-1800 : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] nuove pubblicazioni scientifiche peer-reviewed a partire dalla fine di giugno, come possiamo vedere qui. In altre parole, ci sono state 34 nuove pubblicazioni scientifiche peer-reviewed che […]

  11. Warmism’s Martial Plan | No B-S here (I hope)

    […] Next point is that for scientists to secure employment and research funding, they generally need to be ‘on board’ the CAGW bandwagon. For the sake of argument, if funding were directed ONLY to, say, solar influence on climate, you can bet that a vast global research industry on that topic would emerge. I wouldn’t expect many papers to be published saying that solar influences are negligible. Finally, despite this monopsonistic funding for CAGW research, the “science” of climate change includes hundreds of peer reviewed papers annually disputing the IPCC CAGW mantras. For some reasons this body of science is almost never acknowledged by the climate warriors. There were 280 such papers in 2015 and 240 in the first half of 2016. […]

  12. The Global Warming Fraud | theglobalwarmingfraud
  13. JR

    This is a site for idiots and morons to peruse but not investigate (it’s been done elsewhere). A disinformation campaign that takes less then 5 seconds to disprove with a simple Google search.

    This site does not fool anybody but idiots. Pierre Gosselin is a fraud and will remain a fraud followed by fools.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      You’re right, JR. You have effectively disproved this entire website in a matter of 5 seconds with those two links. Oh that you had been here sooner.

    2. AndyG55


      JR, you poor, dumb, gullible, little, brain-washed twerp.

      Citing the Whopper and some rabid propaganda opinion site….. you have GOT TO BE KIDDING !

      How about you present some SCIENCE instead of NONSENSE.

      Your moronic pre-pubescent rants are not fooling anyone but yourself.

      We seem to be getting more and more of these poor panicky little children as they realise that their fake religion is gradually dying under the burden of reality.

Leave a Reply