1000+ Papers Critical of Global Warming Theory

Timothy Birdnow

Here is a list of over a thousand peer reviewed papers that disagree with the notion of catestrophic anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Back in 2004 science historian Naomi Oreskes (who appears to have more Native American in her than self-proclaimed Cherokee Sqaw Elizabeth Warren) wrote an essay entitled "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" in which she essentially claimed that no scientific research disagreed with anthropogenic global warming theory. She looked at 928 abstracts for papers published between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that 75% supported AGW theory and none disagreed.

This brought guffaws from people in the science community who DID disagree and had published papers to that effect. Benny Peiser was prompted to repeat the experiment and found Oreskes was dead wrong - but then the science Journal Nature sat on his counter paper, then, after it had leaked out to the general public, rejected it, thus denying Peiser peer review, and giving the alarmists something to criticize. 

Oreskes revisited the subject in 2007, claiming that 20% explicitly endorsed the alarmist view and that 55% implicity.

Former vice president and environmental sideshow barker Al Gore relied on  Oreskes in "An Inconvenient Goof, er, Truth".

I suppose Oreskes missed these thousand plus papers.

This business of "concensus" has been the centerpiece of the Gang Green argument, that the science is somehow settled. They must make this case because there is nothing left for them to put forth; nature is just not cooperating with their War of the Worlds scare. They have to stop debate, and now. It was critical to end the debate back in the '90's, and it didn't end despite the efforts of Oreskes and the like.

I still run into alarmists who insist the science is settled, and they come forth with a dizzying array of science organizations and the like who claim the debate is over. The first thing I ask is about their funding; what was it before the advent of AGW theory and what is it now? Since the Gang Green has always pushed the mantra that "deniars" are funded by Big Oil, it behooves us to point out that alarmists are funded by Big Government, which is much, much bigger.

And these people will tell me to believe the conclusion of "experts" rather than my own lying eyes. This is particularly interesting in the Climategate e-mails, where they point to commissions (with vested interests) that have concluded "nothing to see here, folks, move along" when all anyone has to do is actually READ the e-mails. Saying things like "we have to get rid of this editor" or "hide the decline" are unambigious statements - especially when put in context, we we have available. There is a reason why the government raided Tallbloke's home; they need to get these e-mails out of circulation. Only then are we dependent on the conclusions of blue ribbon commissions run by the same people who brought us this hockum to begin with.

So read these papers, folks. Keep this list handy, and you too can Kerpow!
the Gang Green like Batman whacking the henchmen of Poison Ivy.

And Poison Ivy should be the spokeswoman for this bunch.

Hat tip: Climate Depot.)