Peer-reviewed literature that doesn't support AGW...?

McLean et al. snuck a statement into their paper's conclusion that ENSO could be responsible for the recent global warming. This statement was not supported by their work and should never have made it to publication. The peer-review process failed in this instance. Foster et al. soon published a paper pointing out this error, and the editor of the journal even wrote a specific highlight of the rebuttal and McLean's error.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.c...

Lindzen and Choi tried to argue that the climate has a strong negative feedback based on short-term satellite observations. Subsequent reviews of their work found numerous errors.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010...

And Trenberth et al. soon published a study which refuted Lindzen and Choi.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Tre...

There are a few other examples like this, such as Douglass et al. and Soon and Baliunas where some 'skeptic' papers made it through the peer-review process that probably shouldn't have (at least not without being edited further), and were quickly rebutted by a peer-reviewed response.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/...

I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies which fundamentally undermine AGW and which have not been refuted by a subsequent peer-reviewed response.

*edit* Ottawa Mike's link is a classic quantity over quality approach. List a ton of papers which either don't actually refute AGW or were never peer-reviewed or appear in some obsucre non-climate science journal, because you know nobody has the time to go through 700 papers and point out why each of them does not refute AGW. See here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhZPx...

Like pegminer said, try picking just one paper from that list which you think actually refutes AGW and which was actually peer-reviewed by climate scientists. The journal 'New Zealand Geographer' (an actual example from the list) quite obviously doesn't count. Good luck.

*edit* now Ottawa is playing word games. I've got a paper here about the mating rituals of the duck billed platypus that doesn't support AGW either!

This question is imprecisely worded. The entire peer-reviewed literature on, say, gastroenterology doesn't support AGW, but I assume that you mean peer-reviewed literature that undermines or disproves AGW. If so, then Dana has a good list.

The "700 papers" meme is a joke. Nearly all of the papers are (a) very old, (b) discredited, (c) not peer-reviewed, (d) published in E&E, which is not recognised as a reputable journal, (e) irrelevant or (f) neither undermine nor disprove AGW. The ones that remain are basically covered by Dana's list.

I've looked at that website that Ottawa Mike links to, and when I do I find that most of the papers do not refute AGW at all. The ones that "do" seem to come from one journal of questionable character and dubious peer review.

Here's the way that link seems to work. Imagine two scientists, both of whom believe in AGW, but who have different ideas about the effects it will have. One of them thinks there will be more strong hurricanes, the other doesn't. The one that doesn't writes a paper titled "The strength of hurricanes in a warmed climate" and concludes that there will NOT be stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW. That paper gets stuck on this list of peer-reviewed literature that supposedly refutes AGW--EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHOR BELIEVES IN IT AND HAS NOT REFUTED IT AT ALL. Then maybe he writes a few replies to people that have disagreed with his work, and they count the replies as MORE of the 700 papers.

Here's a challenge for you Mike. Out of those 700 papers, pick ONE that you thinks refutes AGW (and is not arguing about subsidiary effects) and doesn't come from Energy & Environment. Frankly, when I skim through that list and see that many of the authors of these papers that are supposed to refute AGW are in fact written by people that I know believe in the truth of AGW, I start thinking that you are playing fast and loose with the facts.

EDIT: Why should I? I've always been dubious of the claims that Oreskes made. She is entertaining, though, and I think she has denial nailed.

Another EDIT: Mike I think you're playing word games, your link was supposed to provide literature that doesn't support AGW--that was the question, after all. I admit I didn't look closely at the title of the link (which I suspect they've changed, but would have to do some research on that). So are you now admitting that these papers do NOT refute AGW? I mean, that's how I understood the question--if we're looking for papers that don't support it by not addressing whether it's true or not, then why not cite every paper from mathematics? I mean, there must be a MILLION papers that don't say anything about AGW, and by your logic that means they don't support it, right?

It's amazing the word games that deniers play.

EDIT for Poptech: Ok, this list either answers the question or it doesn't, which is it? If this list does NOT consist of peer-reviewed literature that doesn't support AGW, then it shouldn't be in people's answers to the question. If it doesn't support AGW, then find some papers among the 700 or 7000 or 7 million or whatever you're claiming that REFUTE AGW. Among the reputable journals (not Energy and Environment) I challenge you to find just ONE of those papers that refutes AGW. What actually will happen to day-to-day weather in a warmed environment is a matter of research and debate, so arguing whether or not tornadoes will get stronger due to AGW is not an argument that does not support AGW.

I think the link that you and Ottawa Mike are so proud of does nothing to refute AGW, and I think that is what the question is about. If you don't think that it refutes AGW, then you shouldn't be using it in your answer.

Like Pegminer, I looked at Mike list and could not find one that disputed AGW.

The papers titled as "skeptical view" or "dissenting view" are very old, mostly from the 1990s. There is nothing based on the vast about of research that has been conducted in the past decade.

Prior to 2001 there certainly was debate about whether AGW was real. Even as recently as 5 or 6 years ago there was some debate. But that is over now. The tools that have been developed since 2001 and the research that has been done has lead to vastly improved understanding of climate drivers and to the certainty that AGW is real.

I would have to agree that you need to be more specific. As has been mentioned, there are thousands upon thousand of peer-reviewed papers. You’ll find that a lot of them are available from the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy, Nature Magazine, Science Magazine etc. If you can, please add some more details, especially if there’s something in particular you’re looking for. In the meantime, check out the links provided by other answerers and search online for the sources mentioned above.

For what it's worth, if Mike produces a list of 700 papers that he claims to be relevant to the question (ie to undermine the case for AGW) (I hope that deals with the semantics), and it is immediately clear (it is) that many of them are not actual peer-reviewed papers or do not undermine the case for AGW, surely it is up to him to tell us which ones he really DOES want us to consider as evidence.

Otherwise, he might just gesticulate vaguely towards the library.

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 700 papers."

@Dana1981, McLean et al. wrote a correction which is on the list,

Correction to "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD013006...

(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)

- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

They also wrote a rebuttal to the comment on their paper,

Response to "Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)

- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Finally, their paper was independently supported,

Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1828v1

(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)

- David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

The Lindzen and Choi have acknowledged the legitimate errors and have made corrections to them which does not change their conclusions. Those other rebuttals are not published. I have a better idea, try picking one paper that proves AGW.

@pegminer, all the journals are peer-reviewed and legitimate. Yes there are authors on the list who believe in AGW and have written papers that support skeptical positions. You seem confused by basic logic. This is about the peer-reviewed evidence supporting skeptics arguments, this is not about the ideology of the authors. If a paper says there is no increase in tornado destruction because of global warming but the author is a flaming alarmist, it does not mean a skeptic cannot use that paper to argue that tornadoes are not getting stronger due to global warming. Like I said basic logic.

NONE of the replies are counted! Not to mention there are way over 700 papers and many more listings. Why are alarmists unable to READ?

"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."

Yes he is clearly saying some of the papers do not refute AGW because that is not the only point of the list. Some do, others "support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of." They all support skepticism of alarm.

@Paul B, all the papers that are counted were peer-reviewed. Repeating this misinformation does not make it true.

@Baccheus, there are many recent papers that support the skeptics view and dissent.

@BGS, please stop repeating misinformation and lies,

(a) There are almost 200 papers from 2008-2010.

(b) None of the papers have been discredited

(c) All the papers are peer-reviewed - please stop repeating this lie. Everyone stating that the papers are not peer-reviewed fails to prove it.

(d) E&E is recognized as a reputable by EBSCO and Scopus.

(e) The relevance of any paper is subjective

(f) Many undermine AGW theory.

I have discredited Dana's list.

This might help: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

Let's give Dana a few hours to scour the Internet to find his favorite pet websites which refute those 700 papers. Although, he will likely use a technique of discounting some journal because they "don't meet the standards for peer review".

Edit: Ooops, never mind. I see Dana has made a blanket statement that all of the those papers have in fact been refuted. I suppose it's up to me now to scour my own pet websites and re-refute the refutation. Oh wait, no, I'm not going to do that because he won't accept anything that is said by me or anyone else who remotely is skeptical of his position.

A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

Edit: Pegminer, could you please apply your methods to the Oreskes paper and get back to us. Thanks.

Edit2: Pegminer, how did you get from the title of this question: "...literature that doesn't support AGW" to the link I gave: "support skepticism of "man-made" global warming" to your own definition: "...pick ONE that you think refutes AGW"

Who said anything about refute?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

That's

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

The above link is a list of 700--count 'em--700 peer-reviewed articles that contest AGW and/or its various aspects.

There is no need to do such a pointless thing! Burden of proof lies with those presenting unproven theories! That would be like writing a peer-reviewed paper on why unicorns dont exist!