Has any of the evidence that denies anthropogenic climate change been subject to peer review?

Yes...

... and please bare with me, I know that this is a long post. There are a few scientific articles that are skeptical of anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse warming. These articles can be lumped into two broad categories:

(I) An increase output from the sun is driving climate change

(II) Cloud cover is affecting global temperatures.

So forget all of the hype and nonsense floating around out there on blogs and opinion pages. Nonsense such as, "But, the climate has always changed naturally" and "Well, the ice caps are melting on Mars too!" and "I just had to shovel 4 feet of global warming off my sidewalk" and let’s focus on the science.

(I) Everyone agrees that changes in solar output has affected the global climate in the past, but the real question is whether changes in solar output are responsible for our recent global warming. Scientists named E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen published an article that made a very strong case for this connection in 1991. “Solar irradiance has [various phases, such as an 80-90 year phase and the 11-year sunspot cycle. …] [T]his variation is causing a significant part of the changes in the [recent] global temperature.[1]” Here is the graphic that when along with his article: http://www.sepp.org/publications/images/gif/solara... .

However, it was soon discovered that Friis-Christensen’s graph was based on an embarrassing and trivial mathematical error. Basically, Friis-Christensen had smoothed the graph, (which means he filtered out the background noise and odd anomalies). This is a common practice, and scientists filter “noise” out all the time. However, Friis-Christensen did not filter the most recent data that he used, because not all the data needed to do the filtering was available at the time of publication.

When the data did become available, the graph showed that any correlation between solar output and global temperatures ended during the 1970’s: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/images/Screen... [2].

Since the correction of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen article, published article have nearly unanimously agreed that changes in solar output can not be responsible for most of earth's recent warming:

* Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming"

* Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

* Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%."

* Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

* Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

* Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

* Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

* Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

* Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

* Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

* Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".

* Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".

* Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

* Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

(II) Another objection to anthropogenic greenhouse warming deals with cloud formation.

(a) Prof. Richard Lindzen in 2001, that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in fewer cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation would escape from Earth's atmosphere. More infrared radiation escaping from earth would cool it down. This is know as the iris hypothesis.[3]

Other scientists have since put the hypothesis to test. Some concluded that that there was simply no evidence supporting the hypothesis.[4] Others found evidence suggesting that increased sea surface temperature in the tropics did indeed reduce cirrus clouds formation; but they found that a reduction in cirrus clouds didn't cool the climate as Lindzen had hypothesized, but warmed the climate instead[5][6]. It seems that Lindzen had based his model around Indonesia, which is where some of the warmest ocean waters are found. His modeled results are not typical of the tropics as a whole.

(b) E. Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark suggested that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. When solar output increases, these cosmic rays are pushed away from the earth and that reduces cloud cover. With less cloud cover reflecting solar light, the earth warms up.[7]

This hypothesis has been taken seriously and investigated by numerous climatologists. There’s a major flaw in the hypothesis in that it requires an increase in solar output. Scientists believe that there’s been no significant increase in solar output over the past 40 years[8]. Two researchers studying this issue further found that any correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature break down after 1991[9].

The problem with this questions and ones like it is that it presumes AGW to be a single discreet thing, that either it is or it isn't. AGW is a set of beliefs, some may be true and others may be false. AGW is also a matter of degrees. There is a world of difference between a slight rise in temperatures and the "planetary emergency" that Al Gore portends. Furthermore many of these impending changes could take centuries to play out. People in 1900 couldn't begin to imagine the challenges of the 21st century, it's unlikely we have an accurate idea of the world 100 years hence. Anyone who says things like "the science is in" and "the debate is closed" has zero knowledge of science. The history of science is full of orthodoxy overturned by new discoveries. The truth is there is a lot we don't know about the climate and the forces that drive it. That something hasn't or can't be disproved doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on those that advance the belief not those who are skeptical. That we don't know all that nature does to alter the climate is not proof that we are doing it. Certainly the geological record is proof that nature can cause the effects we see, so that needs to be considered. The biggest issue I have with AGW isn't the science, it's the politics. This whole thing looks suspiciously like a panic being generated by people who have a vested interest in scaring the public into surrendering our wealth and our liberties. Whether or not climate change will do more harm than good is still an open question, but history has shown that losing one's freedom has never been a good thing. We should be very suspicious of people who can create a long list of potential disasters without balancing it with potential benefits. Very little in this world is all good or bad. Frankly I wish Al Gore would just go away and leave the issue to people who actually attended science classes. We have a lot to learn and may well discover that all of this is overblown.

If you're a neuropathy individual and you intend to modify your life then this is your book https://tr.im/FIoEQ , Neuropathy Solution.

With the Neuropathy Solution you will sooth the annoyed nerves and awaken the numb, sleepy arms, feet, and feet. You'll sleep soundly because some steps in that e-guide cause customers'head release a “happy” hormones called endorphins that will fight pain. And you will reduce suffering and treat obviously without unwanted effects within less than a month

With Neuropathy Solution you will remove peripheral neuropathy once and for all.

Just responding to the first answer re: flat earth comparison. There comes a point when theory and idea give way to indisputable fact hence we no longer dispute the earth's shape.

Man's responsibility for climate change has not yet reached that point, consequently the debate rages, the fact that both sides of the argument have vested interests means that saps like me resent being affected by smart arses on either side. I was brought up to believe science dealt in fact, provable repeatable fact, scientists now talk about consensus and opinion or quote reams of baffling reports in continuous argument counter-productive to ordinary guys like me who struggle to pay the extra fuel, transportation, construction costs associated with the green arguments thats why the above question is never asked, but the reverse is.

Benjamin's still got his list of scientist who agree the suns contribution is somewhere in a ball park of -1.6% to 30%. Do you suppose the scientist who worked so diligently to come to a -1.6% conclusion would concede that the scientist who guessed it's 30% is probably more correct? If you told them both to sit down and come up with one number do you think they could? I wonder if those 2 guys had there studies reviewed by the same peers?

Kinda reminds me of the link I saw earlier, 57 billion tons of ice lost in Antartica give or take 52 billion tons.

Let's see the evidence; given all scientific studies (excluding of course those not in the main stream) it's not the sun because the sun's influence because the sun is only responsible for somewhere in this 30% ball park, it's got to be CO2 because we've made calculations, and we know it's warming because Antartica has lost somewhere in the range 2 billion to 109 billion tons of ice, we know the amount of warming is unprecedented because proxy history's that we know are accurate, except when they need to be thrown out because after calculating and comparing to actual temperatures we found our calculations were wrong, show that until know it usually takes the earth of thousands of years to warm up 1 degree celcius.

As you can see from AGW proponents, scientist who disagree are not part of the mainsteam and therefore must be wrong or simply being paid to lie. Please forgive me if I don't find the concensus science compelling or the conclusions realistic.

The kindest interpretation of mick t's answer is that he is being naive. He is quoting a document put together by politicians (Republican senators) with obvious vested interests in trashing the concept of AGW. A quick look at the quoted signatories shows that only a minority of them have anything to do with climate, and that quite a large number are not even scientists at all, but engineers. We have quotations from them, but only some of these amount to denial of the existence of anthropogenic climate change, while most just expressed varying degrees of scepticism.

Digging deeper into the report, the only actual publication I could find was an internal Brookhaven laboratory report, which is completely different from a peer-reviewed publication.

Frankly, Benjamin in his posting here today has done a much better job of describing the remaining scientific dissent from AGW than these senators.

reverse phone number search compiles hundreds of millions of phone book records to help locate the owner's name, location, time zone, email and other public information.

Use a reverse phone lookup to:

Get the identity of an unknown caller.

Identify an area code.

Recall the name of a person whose number you wrote down.

Identify an unfamiliar phone number that shows up on your bill.

https://tr.im/721a7

There are some papers that disagree with IPCC conclusions. You can find them through googlescholar:

http://scholar.google.com/

Lassen & Friis-Christensen (1991) found a strong link between sunspots and temperature, and claimed most warming was solar linked. This was later proven to be a result of them doing their maths wrong by Damon & Laut (2004). Further research showed there was no correlation for 40 years in Lockood & Frohlich (2007), and that fundamental predictions of the theory were wrong in Erlykin, Sloan & Wolfendale (2009). More recently, Lean (2010) has shown solar and galactic ray contributions to global warming are most likely negligible.

Some people have authored papers finding a low 'climate sensitivity' (ie we won't get much warming for our CO2). Idso & Idso published some, but they relied on local nonequilibrium experiments to determine a global equilibrium, and I believe their results are no longer taken seriously. Lindzen, Choi & Spencer have also published papers arguing for lower climate sensitivity, but the majority of the scientific literature falls around the range given by the IPCC:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-lit...

In response to another post, I think Plimer's an idiot who's parroting stupid arguments - his references often fail to support what he says or are irrelevant. He got torn a new one by George Monbiot, a journalist(!):

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Monbiot-Plimer_Deb...

This is what I believe. There's so much talk all over the place, we don't need to read this stuff to know what we are doing wrong. The biggest danger that I observe is that people want to "do their part" but they only look at what doesn't affect their lifestyle too much. There are so many people on earth, does it really make a difference if I drive a hybrid or you drive a hybrid or we both drive a hybrid? I don't think so because the real problem is that everyone wants their own personal vehicle of any kind and there's so many people. Unless we change what we want for ourselves, not much will really change. We don't need reports or literature, just look around and observe for example, how much of nature is paved over to accommodate our desires. Apply the vehicle example to how we do just about anything. Remember what Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Good luck in your quest, at least a quest is doing something.

Yes it has.

The jury is still out on both sides still though.

All it takes is a minimal search and you can find all the information both pro and anti.

Avoid excessive alcohol. Alcohol may worsen peripheral neuropathy.