Growing Skepticism: Already 150 New (2017) Scientific Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

650+ Skeptic Papers

Published Since 2016

During the first 3 months of 2017, over 150 papers have already been published in scientific  journals that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)

The 2017 publication rate (~50 scientific papers per month) is slightly ahead of last year’s pace.  That’s because in 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging the “consensus” claim that weather and climate changes are significantly determined by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

These 150 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate, and that natural factors — the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations (NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO), cloud and aerosol albedo variations  — have exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present.

The guideline for the list of 150 scientific papers with links and summaries and graphs has been divided into 3 parts on 2 pages (Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).  

Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change  

Solar Influence On Climate (38)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (20)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (3)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (1)

Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (12)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (3)
No Trends In Extreme, Unstable Weather In Recent Decades (3)
Natural CO2 Sources Out-Emit Humans (2)
Fires, Anthropogenic Climate Change Disconnect (1)
Miscellaneous (5)

Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction

Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (9)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (10)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (21)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (1)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (10)

74 responses to “Growing Skepticism: Already 150 New (2017) Scientific Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. AndyG55

    The CO2 knob need to go up a LOT higher.

    Treat it as a tachometer, going up to 1500+ ppm

    Put the foot down guys..

    ..time to get this glorious CARBON BASED planet of our humming..

    .. progress is brought about by RELIABLE energy supply! 🙂

    1. SebastianH

      Let us bring the concentration up to 8000 ppm then … the end of life for all mankind 😉 Archievement unlocked!

      1. Sunsettommy

        Then you don’t have any counterpoint to the post,Sebastian?

        1. SebastianH

          A counterpoint to what exactly? It’s a list of papers and almost none of them says humans don’t influence climate. Find me one and i’ll try to find counterpoints.

          1. AndyG55

            There is no doubt that humans affect local temperatures, UHI, airports, etc, and that this feeds through, with a LOT of help, to the NOAA/GISS surface temperatures.

            But there is absolutely NO PROOF that humans are affecting the overall atmospheric temperature.

        2. SebastianH

          Here is a counterpoint:
          Under “Natural CO2 Sources Out-Emit Humans (2)” two papers are listed. Harde (2017) is an obviously misleading paper with wrong conclusions. I’d like to see the peer review process for this one. The second paper by Carey et al is about Earth’s soil and the possibility that it could release more CO2 than we emit if warming continues. I don’t see how this is a skeptical position, it’s more a alarmist position.

          1. SebastianH

            And again, it doesn’t matter how much nature is out-emitting humans. The calculation is simple enough to get to the conclusion that nature is still a net sink and doesn’t cause an increase of CO2 by this “out-emitting”.

            It gets interesting when feedbacks to the warming happen, like increased CO2 release by soil or less absorption by sea water, etc … and this paper/article is a warning about such a feedback.

            I didn’t read all the other papers, but I suspect that there are lots more that actually say something different then what you quoted them for and aren’t skeptical at all. I’m very skeptical about your understanding of written text, because you have a history of intentional misunderstanding.

          2. P Gosselin

            Give us a break, oh expert. Glad to see you see the uncertainty with the feedbacks. Unfortunately you choose to stay blind on negative feedbacks, and hallucinate wildly when it comes the magnitudes of the positive ones. You have to be more objective when looking at science. It would help to go back and look at the geological history-

          3. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “[I]t doesn’t matter how much nature is out-emitting humans [because]nature is still a net sink and doesn’t cause an increase of CO2 by this “out-emitting”.

            We know you believe this to be true. We have no observational evidence that confirms that the massive increase in net land mass/soil gains in recent decades (173,000 km2) has been neatly and systematically compensated for by a equal and compensatory change in natural sinks. This is only assumed to be true.

            Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. That’s why they’re beliefs. We don’t know the values of natural CO2 emissions or natural sinks. We don’t know how much CO2 is emitted by the oceans vs. absorbed by the oceans. All we have are educated guesses (that change from year to year with each new “insight”) about what these values are.

            And despite not knowing — and not caring to know — how much CO2 nature emits and sinks on her own, you circularly claim that we nonetheless “know” that natural emissions are overwhelmed by natural sinks. We don’t know what A or B are, but we know that B is greater than A anyway.

            Unfalsifiable. Belief.

          4. SebastianH

            Your beliefs are unfalsifiable.

            And here we go again. It’s simple math.

            [CO2 increase] - [Human emissions] = [Nature emissions A] - [Nature absorption B]

            The left-hand-side is negative, therefor the right-hand-side must be negative too. It defies all logic to assume you need to know A or B to get to that result.

      2. AndyG55

        Maybe seb should try to come up with another mindless analogy.

        That’ll show us !!

      3. dave

        Humans can do well at 8000 ppm. Submariners do it now.

    2. AndyG55

      Unfortunately, we are unlikely to get to even 1000ppm in any foreseeable future.

      The mention of 8000ppm, is just another indication of seb’s manic ignorance.

  2. Mindert Eiting

    Thanks a lot, Richard, for all these skeptical papers. My take is more simplistic. AGW predicts a tropospheric hot spot. Because this spot does not exist, our patient is stone dead. Thousands of papers may gradually show that our patient is not very sound, a bit sick perhaps, very sick, or almost dead. It adds a lot of suffering to the AGW family and takes much energy from their attack-dogs sod and seb. I do not know whether this is the most healthy route to reconcile them with the inevitable.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Attack dogs? Hmm. I see sod as a chihuahua, small, unintelligent with an inflated sense of its own importance. I believe the Mexicans originally bred these for snack food.
      As for seb, I think an australian silky terrier. Small, always yapping, obscure breed which rapidly lost popularity in its homeland and is supported only by eccentrics.

      1. AndyG55

        Close enough… 🙂

      2. SebastianH
        1. AndyG55


          Not it hasn’t.

          The Sherwood paper has been absolutely shown to be a monumental load of CRAP and blatant torturing of data.

          ““By their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for.”

          That sounds more like a selecting process in the scope of confirmation bias than science.

          In fact it sounds like creative writing – as in fiction, fantasy .. FRAUD.

          No wonder seb yaps it up.!!!

  3. Curious George

    What a chaos. Can’t we fire editors who allow a skeptical paper to be published?

  4. Don

    “Let us bring the concentration up to 8000 ppm then … the end of life for all mankind 😉 Archievement unlocked!”

    Why is that a problem?
    The air we breathe in contains about 0.04% carbon dioxide (400 ppm)
    The air we breathe out contains about 4% carbon dioxide (40,000 ppm).

    Plants love it, why don’t you?

    1. P Gosselin

      We are a long way away from 8000 ppm, and so it’s ridiculous to even think about it. At 2000 ppm we’d be just fine, and likely much better off.

      1. sod

        ” At 2000 ppm we’d be just fine, and likely much better off.”

        No. 2000 ppm would be nearly 3 times doubling from 270 ppm. with a sensitivity between 1.5°C and 4.5°C we are talking about a pretty extreme effect.

        even if you only assume 1°C per doubling, it would still turn January in Germany into March.

        1. P Gosselin

          And quite possibly be enough to spare us another 90,000 year ice age, though I seriously doubt that.

          1. SebastianH

            It’s interesting that on one side skeptics deny the possibility of a warming effect from increase CO2 levels and on the other side welcome such an effect.

            On the topic of deleting comments: I noticed you do that now … I guess you really don’t want replies to nonsense or comments where I correct myself. I ment to write 80000 ppm not 8000 ppm … but whatever.

          2. Robert Folkerts

            Can I suggest fears of another ice age should be unwarranted.
            That there has only been one ice age, and the unique conditions which enabled it to occur are unlikely repeatable.

          3. AndyG55

            We are not skeptics,.. we are REALISTS.

            We KNOW that there is not one single paper that proves CO2 causes warming a convective gravity/pressure controlled atmosphere.

            Or any paper that proves that CO2 changes over water cause any warming.

            There is nothing provable for us to deny… like YOU deny the PROVABLE gravito/thermal effect that controls energy movement in the atmosphere.

            The ONLY one in DENIAL here is YOU, seb.

          4. SebastianH

            There is nothing provable about your imagined gravito thermal effect. You obviously don’t know what a prove is and that those rarely happen in physics. That’s a math thing. In physics you have evidence that supports a theory. If you have evidence that contradicts a theory then the theory has to be revised.

            Being confused about cause and effect is not a proof and not evidence of a theory about a gravito/thermal effect. Also gravity performs no work … it’s not possible do cause a temperature differential without work, is it? Thermodynamics?

          5. AndyG55

            Learn , little flea-brain.

            Whatever immediately compensates.

            End of story. !!

          6. AndyG55

            Seb .. the ultimate SCIENCE DENIER.

            Unable to prove even the most basic farce of the AGW scam

            Poor little FAILURE, that you are, seb.

            Gravity exerts a force on all matter, even the atmosphere, seb.

            I knew you were DUMB, but your ignorance of basic science and physics ASTOUNDS even me. !!

          7. SebastianH

            Whatever immediately compensates.

            How convenient … and how would that work? The backradiation has been measured extensively. It’s currently between 250 W/m² and 350 W/m² in Hamburg (Germany) depending on the cloudiness ( Here are some stations in the US:

            And you think convection immediately compensates for changes? So when cloud cover increases, convection increases? And the energy transported by convection is also between 250 and 350 W/m²? Are you sure?

            P.S.: Gravity exerts a force, correct. But can you tell me how that force is able to perform work? Do you have to perform work to stand on the surface of Earth? Does a table have to perform work to stand on the surface of Earth?

          8. AndyG55

            Your absolute WILFUL IGNORANCE about atmospheric processes is getting beyond HILARIOUS. 🙂

            Where’s that paper seb.

            MIA. !!

          9. AndyG55

            “Does a table have to perform work to stand on the surface of Earth?”

            Oh dear.. so you are saying that there is NOTHING holding the table up.

            Your ignorance of basic physics is YET AGAIN, brought.

            The Earth MUST be applying a force on the table..

            Surely even your ignorant sludge of a mind knows that.

            Tell you what seb……

            Go and get an anvil, and hold it up in the air above your head.

            According to you, it will required no energy at all, will it.

            (note the use of a very simple analogy , so that seb has at least a basic chance of understanding.)

          10. AndyG55

            Poor seb..

            You have many km of air pressing down on the top of your head.

            Be VERY thankful something is holding up..

            ..otherwise your brains would turn to mush..

            OOOPS .. too late !!

          11. AndyG55

            “In physics you have evidence that supports a theory.”

            so funny

            You cannot provide one single paper of real physics that supports the very basis if the AGW scam.

            You CANNOT even prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere,

            … nor that CO2 causes warming of ocean water.

            Yet here you are DENYING the real physics of the observed gravity/thermal effect.

            That really is quite IRRATIONAL, …

            ..and totally against all measured evidence.

            But hey, just keep up your farce of a irreligious belief , seb.. it seems to be all that you have in your pitiful life.

          12. AndyG55

            “It’s currently between 250 W/m² and 350 W/m² in Hamburg (Germany) depending on the cloudiness”

            H2O latent heat that j=has already cooled the surface.

            Gees you seriously are DUMB, aren’t you seb.

            And look how the atmosphere compensates over night…. is that immediate enough for you ??

            LOOK and LEARN, little mind !!!

          13. SebastianH

            And these five comments are the reason why skeptics are viewed with skepticism by the rest of us 😉

            Thank you AndyG55 for constantly demonstrating what a lovely person you are.

            Does the table need an energy source to stand on the ground?

          14. AndyG55

            Does the anvil held above your head require zero energy to hold it there?

            Your grasp of physics seems as infinitesimally tiny as your grasp on how the atmosphere works.

            But denying, or is it just ignorance yet again, Newton’s third law, is bizarre even from you.

        2. AndyG55

          There is NO PROOF that CO2 causes warming in an atmosphere controlled by convection and pressure gradient.

          So your warming “belief” is purely suppository, sob.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “So your warming ‘belief’ is purely suppository”

            suppository: a solid but readily meltable cone or cylinder of usually medicated material for insertion into a bodily passage or cavity (as the rectum)

            I assume you meant supposition(al). Or did you mean to imply that the CO2 belief is comparable to…uh, that?

          2. SebastianH

            Can you quantify how much W/m² is caused by convection? You never answer that question …

          3. AndyG55

            For seb.. I used exactly the word I intended to use 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            Whatever is necessary to overcome the feeble CO2 warming effect.

            Its all controlled by the gravity / thermal / pressure gradients in the atmosphere.

            Didn’t you know that, seb???

            Or are you being WILLFULLY IGNORANT, as usual.

          5. SebastianH

            Whatever is necessary to overcome the feeble CO2 warming effect.

            What would be necessary? This has been quantified by measurements … just google the numbers.

          6. AndyG55

            The control is by the gravity thermal pressure.

            It is simple, it is automatic.

            Go back and learn some basic physics, seb, because yours is sadly lacking !!

          7. AndyG55

            Ever been near a bushfire, seb?

            A whole lot of heat and CO2..

            But come the next WEATHER CHANGE…

            … ALL GONE !!

            Convection is a marvellous leveller, isn’t it seb. 😉

        3. Adrian

          “it would still turn January in Germany into March”

          IF … X and Y and Z and … many others (each of them having a not so big probability)… that is, IF something of very low probability happens THEN Germans would have to pay less for heating, there would be better agriculture and so on…

          That would be an amazingly good thing. But unfortunately it’s not going to happen. As Andy said above, there are many things going on in the atmosphere besides the radiative transfer, rendering your speculation worthless.

        4. tom0mason

          sod, there is no observed (i.e. measured) warming effect below the tropopause (where we exist) that has been shown to be caused by the minimal CO2 accumulation thus far.
          Get with the real observed science, not junk theories of “might”, “could”, “may” and all the rest of the weasel-words so loved by the UN-IPCC AGW advocates and believers.
          You could of course just read the papers referenced above and learn some science.

  5. ned

    Volcano spews huge ash clouds

    The explosions hurled an estimated 11 cubic miles (45 cubic km) of debris into the atmosphere darkening skies up to 275 miles (442 km) from the volcano. In the immediate vicinity, the dawn did not return for three days.

    Mount Tambora & the year without a summer

  6. AndyG55


    Big drop in UAH for march down to +0.19.

    For March 2017, this is in equal 8th place in UAH data, level with 2015, 2016

  7. Mark M

    I’m old enough to remember the Scientific Method …

    “If it (observation) disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

    2017, Dr Andrew Watkins the manager of climate prediction services at the Bureau of Meteorology:

    “(B)asic physics” governed that [global warming] would increase the intensity of cyclones in the future.

    It does not, however, explain this season’s anomaly.

    “Being perfectly honest, [Global Warming] is a factor in most of our climate science these days but in terms of tropical cyclones you couldn’t put this season down to [Global Warming],” he said.

  8. Don from OZ

    So Sob and Seb perhaps it is past time for you to campaign to stop the production of bottled CO2 that is used for soft (fizzy) drinks, beer, wine, spirits, injection into greenhouses to boost vegetable growth rates (up from 400ppm to 1200ppm), an insulant/oxidation preventative in MIG and TIG welding, Fire extinguishers …….

  9. AndyG55

    OT Looks like coal use is having a resurgence in Asia.

    More CO2 for the world’s plant life 🙂

  10. AndyG55


    EXTREME weather on the rise…. NOT


    BENIGN is the word for the current climate.

    The CO2 HATERS would see us go back to a more extreme time, like the LIA, where suffering and pestilence reigned supreme.

    The AGW agenda !!

    AGW believers are a pestilence to human existence…

    aren’t you seb/sob.

  11. CO2isLife

    Help!!! I’ve been banned on Facebook for being “abusive.” Here is my recent article. Anyone that reads my posts knows that they have been directed at exposing the climate bullies.
    The Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life

  12. Rosco

    All of the claims about adding radiation fluxes and calculating the resultant . temperatures are based on incorrect mathematics.

    You cannot add two discrete radiation flux values and calculate the temperature using the SB equation.

    This University lecture – – claims that 239.7 + 239.7 = 479.4 at 303 Kelvin.

    It is absurdly easy to debunk this ridiculous claim.

    Firstly it explicitly claims that atmospheric back radiation has the same heating power as the solar radiation – that is so absurd I cannot believe anyone could even credit it as anything other than nonsense !

    Secondly the solar radiation and atmospheric back radiation are almost entirely mutually exclusive spectrally – to add them is also absurd beyond belief !

    Thirdly if you consider two fluxes each 239.7 W/m2 in the infra-red you can then state that 239.7 W/m2 is the emission from a blackbody at ~255 K which the lecture correctly shows.

    If you CAN add these fluxes algebraically and calculate the temperature using the SB equation you MUST be able to do the same thing using Planck curves.

    This is because the integral of a black body Planck curve times pi – the area under the curve – is the SB equation = sigmaT^4 – this is indisputable.

    BUT adding the two curve values produces a curve which is NOT a true Planck curve !!!

    If you think about this for just a second you will see simple algebra CANNOT shift the peak of the curve for the temperature equivalent to 239.7 W/m2, ~255K, to shorter wavelengths even though the area under the curve has the same numeric value as the true Planck curve for ~303 K!!

    Planck’s curve is continuous and positive over all possible values of wavelength and therefore the rules of calculus apply !

    Hence the sum of the 2 discrete integrals for the separate 239.7 values equals the integral for the sum.

    BUT 239.7 + 239.& DOES NOT produce a valid Planck curve and is therefore totally wrong.

    If one cannot sum up flux values for black body radiation one cannot do it at all !!

    All of the devices that measure DLR use the SB equation incorrectly and therefore their recordings cannot be valid.

    This is simple to prove mathematically using Planck curves and I can supply absolute proof if required.

    1. SebastianH

      Please supply absolute proof then. As long as you haven’t done that I will continue to assume that two suns would result in double the radiation (W/m²) on the surface of Earth.

      1. AndyG55


        Seb asking for proof. you can’t be serious !!

        You have NEVER provided one piece of evidence for the very basis of your WARPED anti-human religion

        No paper showing CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        1. SebastianH


          I provided lots of evidence and the proof is of course math & physics. Your answer to that was “Convection is as strong as whatever is needed” (to compensate for CO2 effects) … remember? I was actually rolling on the floor laughing out very load when I read that 😉

          Your fantasy theories about physics and how the world works are really fascinating, but they mark you as fringe and the probability that you are Galileo ist pretty slim 😉

          *: why do you always have to shorten names?

          1. AndyG55

            So funny that you can’t see the hilarious side of YOU asking for evidence from anyone.

            You need even more mirrors in your basement.

            Your fantasy analogies and your amazing LACK of even the most basic comprehension of how the atmosphere works, is quite bizarre to say the least.

            If you think that convection and pressure gradient AREN’T responsible for the control of air and energy movements in the lower atmosphere, then you are obviously living on a very different FANTASY world, totally unlike anything ever experienced on this carbon based, gravity/thermal/pressure controlled planet of ours.

          2. AndyG55

            Since you like little analogies.

            Here’s a little exercise for you, seb

            Light a candle, then slowly bring your finger and thumb in as close to the sides of the wick as you can… that is radiation.

            Now try to put your finger the same distance above the tip of the wick.. that is convection.

            Enjoy.. and maybe you will even learn something, if you have the basic intelligence to do so.

          3. SebastianH


            convection doesn’t heat anything. It just moves hot liquird/gases around.

            Do you agree that heat can’t be transfered twice? Objects have a temperature despite conduction and convection doing their thing. The flame’s temperature would be about 1500 °C and things with a temperature radiate? Do you agree? And from that temperature you can derive the amount of radiation that is emitted.

            What you are basically saying with your theory is that any change in further flame temperature will be compensated by convection. If we put more oxygen towards the flame … no problem, convection increases and it still will be 1500 °C. Or if the temperature of the room the flame is in changes … still no problem, convection will compensate for the increase in backradiation and the temperature will stay the same. Did I summarize you correctly?

            It just doesn’t work like that. Convection is not the big equalizer and a rather smallish way to transfer heat. Aks yourself why thing become hot … if convection were such a great way to transfer heat, they wouldn’t.

            I asked you to quantify how much energy is transfered away by convection at the surface of this planet and you couldn’t tell. Instead the answer was “however much is needed”.

          4. AndyG55


            Your ignorance personifies you.

            Have you done my little experiment yet?

            Show us the burn on your finger from where you had the GUTS to deny convection !

          5. AndyG55

            “I asked you to…blah blah…”

            I asked you to produce one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            So far. you are a MASSIVE FAILURE.

          6. AndyG55

            ““however much is needed”.”

            AGAIN.. you PROVE that you ZERO that you have totally ZERO understanding of the atmosphere, controlled by the gravity induce pressure gradient

            Your continued DENIAL of what is evident to anyone with more than even a fraction of a brain, is totally representative of the FANTASY world of the AGW scam.

          7. AndyG55

            “convection doesn’t heat anything. It just moves hot liquid/gases around.”

            FINALLY you realise a fact…

            Yes.. it moves energy from surface to upper atmosphere.. as a COOLING effect.

            WELL DONE, seb

            …but small, tiny, steps at a time, lest you fry your diminutive brain.

          8. SebastianH

            And yet, despite convection, the candle flame still has a temperature of 1500°C.

            And hey, the average surface temperature is still around 15°C … I wonder what would happen if something would change that temperature … or isn’t that possible anymore, since convection is that great equalizer?

          9. SebastianH

            Kenneth, according to AndyG55’s theory of the universe and everything convection prevents any temperature change. No chance for the Sun or anything else to change the temperature.

          10. AndyG55

            Poor seb , The ONLY thing you have ever managed to prove is that you have ZERO comprehension of how gravity controls the temperature pressure gradient.

            Your wilful displays of your abject ignorance are bordering on a troll-like DISHONESTY.

          11. AndyG55

            The gravity/pressure/thermal THEORY (proven on every known planet with an atmosphere) takes into account the incoming energy and the effect of frequency changes in the range that affect ocean warming.

            The very slight, but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL, warming since the LIA, can be TOTALLY EXPLAINED by solar effects and ocean warming currents, NONE of which are affected in the very least by atmospheric CO2 levels.

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