Before accepting any criticisms of this list, please read the detailed rebuttals.

Rebuttals to Criticisms

Highlights

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [e.g. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)]. Please read the following introductory notes for more detailed information.

Disclaimer: Even though the most prolific authors on the list are skeptics, the inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against Alarmism. Some papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) so they are not confused with the counted papers.



Supplemental papers include (but are not limited to): Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Discussions, Erratum, Rebuttals, Rejoinders, Replies, Responses, Supplemental Material, Updates and Submitted papers.

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Ph.D. Climatology. All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso and Patrick J. Michaels

Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. Just like other popular scientific bibliographic resources (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science), no paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction. Any known published correction will be included on the list following the original paper to show that these did not affect the author's original conclusions.

Formatting: All papers are cited as: "Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors". All Supplemental papers are preceded by an asterisk and italicized; Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers. Ordering of the papers is chronological per category.

Purpose: To provide a bibliographic resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or Alarmism and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;

Rebuttals to Criticisms:

Criticism : 97% of the climate science literature disagrees with the list.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Every major scientific organization disagrees with the list.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list does not define low climate sensitivity.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list does not present a scientific argument.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list has been cherry picked.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list has been debunked, discredited or refuted.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list has not been peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list uses "weasel words".

Rebuttal

Criticism : The list's title implies the papers were written to support skeptic arguments.

Rebuttal

Criticism : All climate related papers not on the list endorse AGW.

Rebuttal

Criticism : None of the papers on the list argue against AGW.

Rebuttal

Criticism : None of the papers on the list argue against consensus.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Supplemental papers are counted.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal

counted

Criticism : Some papers on the list are duplicates.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are hidden behind a paywall.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are mutually exclusive [contradictory].

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not relevant.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal

counted

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not peer-reviewed because they are a "Letter".

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not physical science papers.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not research papers.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are not widely cited.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are old.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list are refuted by a blog post.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list contain errors.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list discredit the entire list.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list do not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list do not argue against climate change denial.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list do not argue against global warming.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list have been debunked, discredited or refuted.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers on the list have been retracted.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some papers were listed based only on their title.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Most of the papers on the list come from Energy & Environment.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Papers on the list come from "dog astrology" journals.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some journals on the list are not indexed in a Thomson Reuters product.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some journals on the list are not peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some journals on the list are trade journals.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some journals on the list do not use relevant reviewers.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some journals on the list have a low impact factor.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Authors have demanded that their papers be removed from the list.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Few of the papers on the list were authored by skeptics.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Most of the papers on the list come from a small amount of authors.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some authors on the list are funded by energy companies.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some authors on the list are not climate scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some authors on the list are not scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Some authors on the list are not skeptics.

Rebuttal

Criticism : AGW hypothesis is never used by scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Alarmism is never used by scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : CAGW is never used by scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : DAGW is never used by scientists.

Rebuttal

Criticism : The editor is not qualified to compile the list.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net was named to be misleading.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a conspiracy theorist website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a creationist website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a right-wing website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a climate "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a climate change "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a global warming "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is a science "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is an AGW "denier" website.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is not a scholarly journal.

Rebuttal

Criticism : Popular Technology.net is not cited, referenced or taken seriously.

Rebuttal

Highlights: (A sample selection of papers from the list)

General:

Antarctica:

Arctic:

Climate Sensitivity:

Clouds:

Coral Reefs:

Deaths:

Disease:

Ecological:

Glaciers:

Greenland:

Gulf Stream: (Thermohaline Circulation)

Hockey Stick: (MBH98, MBH99, Mann et al. 2008)

Medieval Warm Period:

Roman Warm Period:

Ocean Acidification:

Permafrost:

Polar Bears:

Sea Level:

Species Extinctions:

Natural Disasters:

Droughts, Floods:

Earthquakes:

Heat Waves:

Hurricanes:

Storms:

Tornadoes:

Wildfires:

Satellite Temperatures: (UAH)

Urban Heat Island:

Weather Stations:

1,500-Year Climate Cycle:

CO2 Lags Temperature:

"Temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months."

"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."

"The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr."

"The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years."

"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"

"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."

"The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition"

"There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature."

Cosmic Rays:

Lunar:

Solar:

An Inconvenient Truth:

Armed Conflict:

Climategate:

IPCC:

Kyoto Protocol:

Socio-Economic:

Stern Review:

Historic: (Pre-1970) * This section is not counted

Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)

Journal Notes:

Definitions:

Impact Factor is a subjectively devised determination of popularity not scientific validity, that is widely abused and manipulated.

Deluged by so many manuscripts, high-impact journals can send only a fraction out to experts for review. Nature, for example, rejects half of the submissions it gets without forwarding them to referees, says its editor in chief, Philip Campbell. [...]



Dr. DeAngelis, of JAMA, says editors at some top journals have told her that they do consider citations when judging some papers. "There are people who won't publish articles," she says, "because it won't help their impact factor." [...]



Fiona Godlee, editor of BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal), agrees that editors take impact factors into account when deciding on manuscripts, whether they realize it or not. ...She says editors may be rejecting not only studies in smaller or less-fashionable fields, but also important papers from certain regions of the world, out of fear that such reports won't attract sufficient citation attention.

The impact factor, however, is not always a reliable instrument for measuring the quality of journals. Its use for purposes for which it was not intended, causes even greater unfairness.

"Whether in performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the H-index and the impact factor. The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where. This puts extreme pressure upon researchers to publish as much as possible and sometimes leads to cases of scientific misconduct in which incorrect statements are provided concerning the status of a publication. This is not in the interest of science,"

Summary points:

- Use of journal impact factors conceals the difference in article citation rates (articles in the most cited half of articles in a journal are cited 10 times as often as the least cited half)

- Journals' impact factors are determined by technicalities unrelated to the scientific quality of their articles

- Journal impact factors depend on the research field: high impact factors are likely in journals covering large areas of basic research with a rapidly expanding but short lived literature that use many references per article

- Article citation rates determine the journal impact factor, not vice versa

...it is well known that editors at many journals plan and implement strategies to massage their impact factors. Such strategies include attempting to increase the numerator in the above equation by encouraging authors to cite articles published in the journal or by publishing reviews that will garner large numbers of citations. Alternatively, editors may decrease the denominator by attempting to have whole article types removed from it (by making such articles superficially less substantial, such as by forcing authors to cut down on the number of references or removing abstracts) or by decreasing the number of research articles published. These are just a few of the many ways of "playing the impact factor game."



One problem with this game, leaving aside the ethics of it, is that the rules are unclear—editors can, for example, try to persuade Thomson Scientific to reduce the denominator, but the company refuses to make public its process for choosing "citable" article types. Thomson Scientific, the sole arbiter of the impact factor game, is part of The Thomson Corporation, a for-profit organization that is responsible primarily to its shareholders. It has no obligation to be accountable to any of the stakeholders who care most about the impact factor—the authors and readers of scientific research.

It became clear that Thomson Scientific could not or (for some as yet unexplained reason) would not sell us the data used to calculate their published impact factor. If an author is unable to produce original data to verify a figure in one of our papers, we revoke the acceptance of the paper. We hope this account will convince some scientists and funding organizations to revoke their acceptance of impact factors as an accurate representation of the quality—or impact—of a paper published in a given journal. Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data.

Impact factors are determined from a dataset produced by searching the Thomson Scientific database using specific parameters. As previously stated, our aim was to purchase that dataset for a few journals. Even if those results were for some reason not stored by Thomson Scientific, it is inconceivable to us that they cannot run the same search over the same database to produce the same dataset. The citation data for a given year should be static. In essence, Thomson Scientific is saying that they cannot repeat the experiment, which would be grounds for rejection of a manuscript submitted to any scientific journal.

The impact factor for a journal in a given year is calculated by ISI (Thomson Reuters) as the average number of citations in that year to the articles the journal published in the preceding two years. It has been widely criticized on a variety of grounds:



- A journal's distribution of citations does not determine its quality.

- The impact factor is a crude statistic, reporting only one particular item of information from the citation distribution.

- It is a flawed statistic. For one thing, the distribution of citations among papers is highly skewed, so the mean for the journal tends to be misleading. For another, the impact factor only refers to citations within the first two years after publication (a particularly serious de deficiency for mathematics, in which around 90% of citations occur after two years).

- The underlying database is flawed, containing errors and including a biased selection of journals.

- Many confounding factors are ignored, for example, article type (editorials, reviews, and letters versus original research articles), multiple authorship, self-citation, language of publication, etc.

Sources:

Acknowledgements:

Citations:

† This resource has been cited over 100 times , including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.Use Ctrl+F (PC) or Command+F (Mac) to search this page.(defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."Lists of skeptical scientists can be found here:This is a dynamic list that is routinely updated. When a significant new number of peer-reviewed papers is added the list title will be updated with the new larger number. The list intentionally includes an additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates. Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated.- John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004)- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2000)- John H., Comment at RealClimate.orgI. This first section includes detailed rebuttals to commonly posted links attacking the list:II. This second section includes general rebuttals to common criticisms:: No 97% study exists that shows 44,000 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. The largest study to date, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus , apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings. All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review : This is misleading since only a very small minority of scientists have actually expressed a position on AGW from these organizations. Policy statements release by a handful of council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than these few scientists. It is disingenuous to imply that the membership bodies (in some cases hundreds of thousands of members ) of these scientific organizations which have never voted to approve such statements can be used in support of them. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of every member's position in relation to these organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.: The IPCC states that, "" Thus, climate sensitivity estimates where the mean does not exceed 2°C () or the high end of the range does not exceed 3°C () are considered to support skeptical arguments for a low climate sensitivity.: The list is anot a scientific argument. The purpose of the list is to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments and to be used as a bibliographic resource to locate these papers.: This is absolutely false, as the list does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints and the purpose of the list is clearly stated, "" Using this logic the IPCC reports are "cherry picked" because they failed to included most of these papers.: The list has never been debunked, discredited or refuted, as all known criticisms of this list have been rebutted. The existence of a criticism does not make it true, as invalid criticisms of the list have been repeatedly shown to be based on lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. In all cases, these long refuted criticisms are now years old and have no relation to the current revision of the list. Whenever a clarification or correction was made for a legitimate issue these have always been insignificant and they have never affected the list count or changed its purpose.: Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the Internet knows that links can break at any time for various reasons. Unfortunately certain journals are apparently unable to hire competent web masters who know how to properly migrate URLs when reorganizing their websites - this problem is out of our control. Regardless, the full citation is provided so there is no excuse about not being able to locate a paper using a search engine like Google. All broken links will eventually be fixed by changing them to persistent URLs using the DOI system. Also, all future papers that are added will be done using DOI URLs. When this list was first created the DOI system was incredibly slow and unreliable but since that time performance and reliability has improved to a point that we feel comfortable using them.: The list is anot a scholarly paper, meta-analysis or systematic review. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments. Qualifiers are not "weasel words", but an accepted method by the scientific community to express a level of confidence. Rejection of the use of qualifiers would mean rejection of the IPCC reports and the use of such terms as "consensus". The IPCC AR5 WG1 'Summary for Policy Makers' liberally uses qualifiers, "".: This is false, as the word "written" is specifically not used in the title. Correct definitions of these words to the actual context they are used here can be found in the " Definitions " section of the list. While hundreds of the papers on the list were written by skeptics , all of the papers are only claimed to have been or can be referenced to support a skeptic argument against Alarmism.: While there are thousands of climate related papers in the scholarly literature only a small percentage of them even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) let alone explicitly endorse it. Studies such as Cook et al. (2013) have shown that 66% hold no position on AGW while only 0.5% explicitly endorse and quantify AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against AGW, such as: Legates and Davis (1997) Beenstock et al. (2012) and more.: There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against consensus, such as: Schulte (2008) Legates et al. (2013) and Tol (2014) . While all of the "97% consensus" studies have been refuted by peer-review : Supplemental papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) so they are not confused with the counted papers. Supplemental papers include (but are not limited to):: Everypaper on the list is a peer-reviewed research or review paper. Certain scholarly journals that do not focus on primary research such as,include research-related ' Opinion ' articles that are peer-reviewed. These scholarly works should not be confused with general commentary or editorial pieces that appear in magazines and newspapers.: No duplicate papers exist on the list and papers in the Highlights section are not counted twice. In the past there were some very minor issues with the merging of multiple lists and category reorganizations that were quickly corrected and had no affect on the list count. An additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers are included on the list as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates.: Whether a full copy of a paper is made freely available is at the discretion of the journal's publisher. Any similar list would have the same limitations since archiving a paper without a publisher's permission would violate copyright law. Where a full copy of a paper was found online, a (PDF) link was added after a paper's name.: The list is anot a unified scientific theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. Papers are included just like they are for other academic bibliographic resources (e.g. Elsevier's Scopus and Ebsco's Academic Search) so long as they meet the topical classification criteria. It is left up to the person using this resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. Anyone with an open mind would accept and welcome independent thought and debate on an unsettled scientific discipline like climate change.: Invalid criticisms of the list include lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that misrepresent why some papers were listed. All of the papers on the list can support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism - which includes hundreds of ridiculous claims made by Alarmists.: Everypaper on the list has been peer-viewed and each journal is checked that it follows a scholarly peer-review process. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they cannot be confused with the actual list of counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed, even though almost all of them have been.: " Letters " is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".: This is a strawman argument, as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic ) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.: This is a strawman argument, as it is not claimed that all the papers are "research" papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Review papers under go the same peer-review process as research papers and are considered scientifically valid. Regardless, there are numerous original research papers on the list.: Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. The infamous retracted paper falsely linking vaccines to autism, Wakefield et al. (1998) has been cited over 2500 times. While this list does not discriminate against papers based on unscientific popularity metrics, many papers on the list have still been cited hundreds of times; e.g. "" has been cited over 1200 times, "" over 550 times and "" over 500 times.: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper " On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground " and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list. The handful of papers in the Historic section (pre-1970) are not counted but included to demonstrate that skepticism has been around for a long time.: Scientific papers do not become "outdated", they can only be falsified and even then they can still remain useful for future research to build upon or adapt from. Scientists have called for various scientific theories to be declared "outdated", from the Big Bang to Evolution but without providing objectively valid arguments that actually falsify them. This is a form of scientific censorship based on ideological biases and personal prejudices with the intent to persuade people from reading certain papers, when in reality the papers may very well be correct.: That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. The list includes any rebuttals to published critical comments following the original paper, these are italicized and proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) so they are not confused with the counted papers.: The list includes a small number of valid papers which also contained minor errors that have since been corrected and did not affect the original paper's conclusions. The scholarly peer-review process is not infallible and errors are sometimes not caught until after the post-publication peer-review process when a larger volume of scientists have had a chance to read a paper. Science is a self-correcting process and publishing corrections to papers is the standard method to do this in the scholarly literature. Corrected papers are never removed from scientific bibliographic resources like retracted papers and they will continue to be cited. The only difference going forward is they should be cited alongside the published correction. This list contains any supplemental papers that include corrections or erratum which are listed following the original. Supplemental papers are preceded by an asterisk and italicized so they cannot be confused with the original paper. In some cases, such as Lindzen and Choi (2009) the authors were unable to get a correction published in the original journal and instead had to publish their correction elsewhere - Lindzen and Choi (2011) . As expected, the original paper - Lindzen and Choi (2009) continues to be extensively cited over 125 times : Cherry picking papers from the list and misrepresenting why they were included is disingenuous. Most people attempting this make invalid assumptions for why a paper was included and then come to a false conclusion about the entire list. In all cases these cherry picked papers have been shown to support a skeptic argument against Alarmism when challenged. A " Highlights " section is specifically included to provide a more accurate sample using papers that make clear skeptic arguments that cannot be misinterpreted.: This is a strawman argument, as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy : This is a strawman argument, as no paper on the list argues that the climate does not change.: This is a strawman argument, as no paper on the list argues that there has not been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.: The existence of a criticism does not make it true. Rebuttals to published peer-reviewed criticisms of a paper are included on the list as supplemental papers following the original. These rebuttals either completely refute the original criticism or correct for legitimate errors and show that these do not affect their original conclusions. It is not reasonable to expect these authors to waste their time responding to every alarmist blog post or comment made against their paper(s) on the Internet. Yet, according to AGW proponents peer-reviewed papers that do not agree with their alarmist position on climate change are either wrong or do not exist. This bibliographic resource was created to correct this myth.: Not a single peer-reviewed paper that has ever appeared on this list has had its peer-reviewed status retracted. If any of these papers are retracted by the journal they were published in they will be removed from this list. This is explicitly stated in the Criteria for Removal : Hundreds of papers on the list have been read in full, while every paper's abstract and conclusion (when available) was read before it was listed. In cases where a paper was not written by a skeptic or support of a skeptic argument was not explicit in the abstract or conclusion, an independent summary by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso and Patrick J. Michaels was used or the paper was read in full.: The IPCC cited scholarly peer-reviewed journalonly represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1200 papers from 350 other journals on the list, including over 120 papers from: This is a dishonest ad hominem that attempts to misrepresent the entire list by cherry picking the peer-reviewed(JSE) and the two listed papers from it, which represent a negligible 0.1%. This list does not discriminate against scholarly journals based on dishonest ad hominem attacks. The JSE is a general interest journal that attempts to " provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science ." This can include papers debating the scientific validity of controversial subjects like astrology ( Fuzeau-Braesch and Denis 2007 ) but defining a journal based on cherry picking a single paper from it is disingenuous since by using this same "criteria" the JSE can just as easily be defined as a "debunking astrology journal" ( McGrew and McFall 1990 ). Regardless, neither of these two papers on the list discuss astrology or any other controversial topic outside of climate change. While they (e.g. Deming 2005 ) have been cited in other scholarly journals referenced by the IPCC, such as Huang et al. 2008 ), Jaspal and Nerlich 2014 ) and Jaspal et al. 2013 ).: ESI (Essential Science Indicators), JCR (Journal Citation Reports), SCI (Science Citation Index) and WoS (Web of Science) are for-profit, commercial products of the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation that indexes only 12,000 peer-reviewed journals (covering the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities) using a subjective inclusion process. Whether a journal is indexed by them is irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal or the scientific validity of a paper. There are thousands of completely legitimate peer-reviewed journals that are not included by them but are with competitors. For instance, Elsevier's Scopus indexes over 21,000 peer-reviewed journals.: No paper is listed without first confirming the journal is peer-reviewed. With all journals that are challenged as to their peer-review status, further confirmation is done using bibliographic databases from EBSCO, Scopus and Thomson Reuters. This detailed information is provided in the Journal Notes following the list.: Trade journals are defined by Scopus as, "" There are no journals on the list that match this criteria or are indexed in a scientific bibliographic database as a trade journal.: The criteria for reviewers is similar for all scholarly peer-reviewed journals. A journal's editor with assistance from the editorial board selects and recruits credentialed experts relevant to the subject matter of the paper being reviewed. It is common for reviewers to be academics at universities who volunteer their time for the advancement of science and in return receive a credential that is highly respected by the scientific community. Being independent volunteers, reviewers are not part of a journal's staff and can review for any journal. Impact Factor is a subjectively devised determination of popularity not scientific validity, that is widely abused and manipulated. This list does not discriminate against journals based on unscientific popularity metrics.: In over seven years, only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and he was using strawman arguments ("") about why his paper [""] was included, despite it clearly stating in the disclaimer - "." It was not worth investing the time to defend the real reason for its inclusion, that it supports the skeptic argument for CO2 not being the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued so the paper was removed. The lead author of this paper, Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and stated in an email to the editor that their paper argues against the IPCC. Roger Pielke Jr. has never contacted the editor requesting any papers be removed and various papers he authored, mainly relating to incorrect attribution of natural disasters are included on the list.: While this is not a list of scientists, hundreds of papers on the list were authored by skeptics. The most prolific authors on the list are all highly credentialed skeptical scientists, such as; Sherwood B. Idso, Richard S. Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, S. Fred Singer, Robert C. Balling Jr., Willie H. Soon, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Sallie L. Baliunas, Indur M. Goklany, David H. Douglas, Nils-Axel Morner, Paul C. Knappenberger, David R. Legates, Robert M. Carter, Chris de Freitas, Craig Loehle, Craig D. Idso, Olavi Karner, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark and many more including; Alan Carlin, Arthur B. Robinson, Arthur Rorsch, Don J. Easterbrook, François Gervais, Frederick Seitz, Garth W. Paltridge, Lee C. Gerhard, Timothy F. Ball, Vincent R. Gray, William M. Briggs and Freeman J. Dyson.: Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading. ISI Highly Cited Researchers such as Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen will naturally be well represented on the list. While it had been independently verified by Needlebase that there were already over 1500 unique authors on the list in 2011 when it was only at 900+ papers.: Intellectually dishonest individuals who are incapable of accepting the existence of scholarly papers contrary to their alarmist ideology have chosen to smear the highly credentialed scientists who authored these papers with libelous ad hominem attacks - falsely implying they are corrupt. No remote evidence has ever been presented that shows a skeptical scientist has changed their position on an issue due to a funding source. While honest investigations have shown these attacks to be baseless: Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? The problem with the corruption argument is that it implies that scientists and researchers who rely primarily on public funding for their climate work are not motivated to tailor their research to the beliefs and policy views of their funding sources. Yet, policy analyses have shown that public funding of science may be susceptible to producing biased results. Regardless, to claim a largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of skeptical scientists are winning the debate against a highly organized climate monopoly that has received over $79 billion in funding because they were granted a paltry $2 million a year from companies like Exxon-Mobil is beyond laughable.: There is no objective criteria that can be used to determine who is a "climate scientist". The field of climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds. Very few climate scientists have a Ph.D. in Climatology like skeptical scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels . Well known alarmist scientists such as NASA's Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org has a Ph.D. in Mathematics, Phil Jones the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of Climategate fame has a Ph.D. in Hydrology, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Hockey Stick author Michael Mann has a Ph.D. in Geology.: Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic ) separate from the physical science sections on the list. The most prolific authors on the list are physical scientists such as ISI Highly Cited Researchers Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen : It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that, ": The phrase "AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis" is used by scientists and can be found in the scholarly literature (e.g. Stern and Kaufmann 2000 Triacca et al. 2013 and Martin 2015 ).: The term "Alarmism" is used by scientists and can be found in the scholarly literature (e.g. Bradley Jr. 2000 Lindzen 2012 and Legates et al. 2013 ).: The term "CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)" is used by scientists and can be found in the scholarly literature (e.g. Carlin 2011 Rose 2014 and Parker 2016 ) and is explicitly implied in the IPCC reports : The term "DAGW (Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming)" is used by scientists and can be found in the scholarly literature (e.g. Boehmer-Christiansen 2002 Singer 2010 and Lee 2015 ).: The editor's university education and later work with research scientists on scholarly peer-reviewed papers for topics such as environmental recycling, nuclear waste disposal and anthropogenic global warming is all the qualifications that are needed to compile a bibliographic resource like this. No specific climate science qualifications are needed since the papers are either written by a qualified skeptic (e.g. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen Dr. John R. Christy ), explicit to a skeptical position (e.g. " CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change "), or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Dr. Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory at CO2 Science and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology at World Climate Report - not the editor. The editor has been acknowledged in the scholarly literature as usefully contributing to published papers on anthropogenic global warming : This is complete nonsense, using this argument would mean magazines like Popular Photography (est. 1937 by Ziff-Davis publishing) were named to be misleading which is obviously ridiculous. The website was named out of the editor's love of technology and as an homage to some of his long-time favorite magazines -and: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we have resources challenging 911 JFK and Moon Landing conspiracy theories.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as the editors all support evolution theory but unlike extremists we respect individual's religious views and their right to hold them.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as the editors are politically independent.: This is a reprehensible smear, as we believe the Holocaust happened and nothing like it should ever happen again.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we believe there is such a thing as a climate.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we believe the climate changes.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.: This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we believe in the study and knowledge of the physical world and its behavior that is based on experiments and facts that can be proved known as science : This is a dishonest ad hominem, as we believe there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).: Bibliographic resources that index academic work are not published in scholarly journals but rather by privately held companies. The most well known are published by multi-billion dollar for-profit corporations (e.g. Elsevier, Thomson Reuters). Popular Technology.net however is a not-for-profit organization and thus not biased towards financial gain.: Popular Technology.net is a highly cited website referenced by over 300 independent sources throughout more than 25 countries in books and scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major and regional news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, political institutions, on radio and by the technology community. Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) - Archive Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (PDF) Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity - ( PDF Do increases in atmospheric CO2 have a cooling effect on surface air temperature? (PDF)(PDF) Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF) Water vapor feedback and the ice age snowline record (PDF) Why Carbon Dioxide Emissions Should Not Be Limited (PDF)(PDF)(PDF) Climate Change Reexamined (PDF)(PDF) Does a Global Temperature Exist? (PDF) Climate Change is Nothing New! (PDF)(PDF)(PDF)(PDF)(PDF) What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2? (PDF)(PDF)(PDF) Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF)(PDF)(PDF)(PDF) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa (PDF) Apparent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930 (PDF) The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records (PDF)(PDF)(PDF)(PDF) Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate (PDF) Solar activity and its influence on climate (PDF)(PDF) Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation (PDF) Managing Planet Earth; Adaptation and Cosmology (PDF) Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems (PDF) Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's State of Fear (PDF) Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA's Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases (PDF) An Ethical Defense of Global-Warming Skepticism (PDF)AAPG BulletinAcademic QuestionsAdvances in Atmospheric SciencesAdvances in GeosciencesAdvances in Global Change ResearchAdvances in MeteorologyAdvances in Space ResearchAgricultural and Forest MeteorologyAgricultural MeteorologyAgricultural Water ManagementAgriculture, Ecosystems & EnvironmentAgronomy JournalAmbioAmerican Journal of BotanyAmerican Journal of Human BiologyAnnales GeophysicaeAnnals of Applied StatisticsAnnals of GlaciologyAnnual Review of Energy and the EnvironmentAnnual Review of Fluid MechanicsAntiquityApplied EnergyApplied Physics ResearchAquatic BotanyArabian Journal of GeosciencesArctic and Alpine ResearchAreaAsia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric SciencesAsia Pacific Journal of Environmental LawAstronautics and AeronauticsAstronomical NotesAstronomy & AstrophysicsAstronomy & GeophysicsAstrophysics and Space ScienceAstrophysics and Space Science LibraryAstrophysics and Space Sciences TransactionsAtmosferaAtmospheric and Climate SciencesAtmospheric Chemistry and PhysicsAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics DiscussionsAtmospheric EnvironmentAtmospheric Environment Part B: Urban AtmosphereAtmospheric ResearchAtmospheric Science LettersAustralian Journal of Emergency ManagementBioScienceBoreasBoundary-Layer MeteorologyBritish Medical Journal (BMJ)Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: PhysicsBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologyCanadian Journal of Agricultural EconomicsCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchCentral European Journal of PhysicsChemical Engineering ProgressChemical InnovationChinese Science BulletinClimateClimate DynamicsClimate of the PastClimate ResearchClimatic ChangeClimatological BulletinCoastal EngineeringCold Regions Science and TechnologyComptes Rendus GeosciencesContemporary South AsiaCoral ReefsCurrent BiologyCurrent Opinion in BiotechnologyDeep Sea Research Part IDeep Sea Research Part IIDevelopment in Earth ScienceDiversity and DistributionsDoklady Earth SciencesEarth and Planetary Science LettersEarth-Science ReviewsEarth System DynamicsEcological ComplexityEcological EconomicsEcological ModellingEcological MonographsEcologyEcology and EvolutionEcology of Freshwater FishEconomic AffairsEconomic Analysis and PolicyEconomics BulletinEmerging Infectious DiseasesEnergyEnergy & EnvironmentEnergy & FuelsEnergy and BuildingsEnergy EconomicsEnergy PolicyEnergy SourcesEnvironment InternationalEnvironmental and Experimental BotanyEnvironmental ConservationEnvironmental GeologyEnvironmental GeosciencesEnvironmental Health PerspectivesEnvironmental Law and ManagementEnvironmental PoliticsEnvironmental PollutionEnvironmental ResearchEnvironmental Research LettersEnvironmental Science & PolicyEnvironmental Science: An Indian JournalEnvironmental Science and Pollution ResearchEnvironmental SoftwareEnvironmetricsEos, Transactions American Geophysical UnionEstuarine, Coastal and Shelf ScienceEuresis JournalFresenius' Journal of Analytical ChemistryFuture VirologyFuturesGeochemistry, Geophysics, GeosystemsGeoforumGeografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical GeographyGeografiska Annaler: Series B, Human GeographyGeographica PannonicaGeoJournalGeologyGeomagnetism and AeronomyGeophysical Journal InternationalGeophysical Research LettersGeoscience CanadaGlobal and Planetary ChangeGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesGlobal Change BiologyGlobal Environmental ChangeGlobal Perspectives on GeographyGSA TodayHerald of the Russian Academy of SciencesHistorical Studies in the Natural SciencesHuman EcologyHydrological Sciences JournalICES Journal of Marine ScienceIl Nuovo Cimento CInterfacesInternational Journal of BiometeorologyInternational Journal of ClimatologyInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthInternational Journal of Environmental Science and EngineeringInternational Journal of Environmental StudiesInternational Journal of ForecastingInternational Journal of GeosciencesInternational Journal of Global Energy IssuesInternational Journal of Global WarmingInternational Journal of Medical Microbiology SupplementsInternational Journal of Modern Physics AInternational Journal of Modern Physics BInternational Journal of Modern Physics CInternational Journal of Physical SciencesInternational Journal of Remote SensingInternational SecurityInternational Social Science JournalInternationales AsienforumIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental ScienceIrish Astronomical JournalIron & Steel TechnologyIrrigation and DrainageIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic PhysicsJournal of Aerosol ScienceJournal of American Physicians and SurgeonsJournal of Anthropological ArchaeologyJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologyJournal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial PhysicsJournal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial PhysicsJournal of BiogeographyJournal of Business EthicsJournal of Chemical, Biological and Physical SciencesJournal of Chemical EducationJournal of ClimateJournal of Climate and Applied MeteorologyJournal of Coastal ResearchJournal of CosmologyJournal of Economic and Social MeasurementJournal of Economic Literature Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and ApplicationsJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerJournal of Environmental ManagementJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part AJournal of Environmental SciencesJournal of Environmental QualityJournal of Experimental BotanyJournal of ForecastingJournal of ForestryJournal of Geographic Information SystemJournal of Geology & GeosciencesJournal of Geophysical ResearchJournal of Geophysical Research: AtmospheresJournal of Geophysical Research: OceansJournal of HydrologyJournal of HydrometeorologyJournal of Information EthicsJournal of Integrative Plant BiologyJournal of Interdisciplinary Cycle ResearchJournal of International StudiesJournal of Lake SciencesJournal of Marine ScienceJournal of Marine SystemsJournal of Natural Gas Science and EngineeringJournal of Non-Equilibrium ThermodynamicsJournal of Optical TechnologyJournal of PaleolimnologyJournal of Peace ResearchJournal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle PhysicsJournal of Physics MalaysiaJournal of Plant PhysiologyJournal of Scientific ExplorationJournal of Sedimentary ResearchJournal of the American Water Resources AssociationJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesJournal of the South African Institution of Civil EngineeringJournal of Vegetation ScienceKinematics and Physics of Celestial BodiesKybernetesLa Houille BlancheLandscape and Urban PlanningLatvian Journal of Physics and Technical SciencesLeadership and Management in EngineeringLibertarian PapersLibyan Journal MedicineLiving Reviews of Solar PhysicsMalaria JournalMarine BiologyMarine Environmental ResearchMarine GeologyMarine Pollution BulletinMathematical GeologyMemorie della Società Astronomica ItalianaMeteorology and Atmospheric PhysicsMeteorologische ZeitschriftMires and PeatMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global ChangeMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMonthly Weather ReviewMoscow University Physics BulletinNatural HazardsNatural Hazards and Earth System SciencesNatural Hazards ReviewNatural ScienceNatureNature Climate ChangeNature GeoscienceNetherlands Journal of GeosciencesNew AstronomyNew Concepts In Global TectonicsNew Literary HistoryNew PhytologistNew Zealand GeographerNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchNew Zealand Journal of ScienceNonlinear EngineeringNordic HydrologyNorwegian Polar Institute LettersOceanologica ActaPalaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, PalaeoecologyPaleoceanographyPaleontological JournalPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society APhysical GeographyPhysical Review & Research InternationalPhysical Review EPhysical Review LettersPhysics and Chemistry of the EarthPhysics Letters APhysics ReportsPlanetary and Space SciencePlant and SoilPlant, Cell & EnvironmentPlant EcologyPlant PhysiologyPLoS BiologyPolitical GeographyPopulation and Development ReviewProceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: EngineeringProceedings of the ICE - Civil EngineeringProceedings of the Indian National Science Academy AProceedings of the Japan Academy, Series BProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)Proceedings of the Royal Society AProceedings of the Royal Society BProgress in Natural ScienceProgress in OceanographyProgress in Physical GeographyPublic Administration ReviewPure and Applied GeophysicsQuarterly Journal of Austrian EconomicsQuarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological ServiceQuaternary InternationalQuaternary ResearchQuaternary Science ReviewsReason PapersRemote SensingRemote Sensing of EnvironmentRendiconti LinceiRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsRenewable EnergyReviews of GeophysicsRisk AnalysisRussian Journal of Earth SciencesScienceScience & EducationScience China Earth SciencesScience of the Total EnvironmentScience, Technology & Human ValuesScientia HorticulturaeSedimentary GeologySocial Philosophy and PolicySocial Studies of ScienceSocietySoil ScienceSOLASolar PhysicsSouth African Journal of ScienceSpace Science ReviewsSpectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular SpectroscopyStatistics, Politics, and PolicyStudia Geophysica et GeodaeticaSun and GeosphereSurveys in GeophysicsTechnologyTectonophysicsThe Astrophysical JournalThe Cato JournalThe CryosphereThe Electricity JournalThe European Physical Journal PlusThe HoloceneThe Independent ReviewThe ISME JournalThe Journal of Wildlife ManagementThe LancetThe Lancet Infectious DiseasesThe Open Atmospheric Science JournalThe Quarterly Review of BiologyThe Review of Austrian EconomicsThe Review of Economics and StatisticsThe Scientific World JournalTheoretical and Applied ClimatologyThermal EngineeringTopics in CatalysisTrends in ParasitologyWater, Air, & Soil PollutionWater Resources ResearchWater SAWeatherWeather and ForecastingWeather, Climate and SocietyWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate ChangeWorld Economics- " The AAPG Bulletin ...the leading peer-reviewed publication for information on geoscience " - AAPG Bulletin- " The Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology is a peer-reviewed scientific journal " - Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology- " Manuscripts are critically evaluated by at least 3 reviewers " - Climate Research- " Economic Affairs is a fully refereed journal. " - Economic Affairs- "" - Economic Analysis and Policy- " The Economics Bulletin is an open access, peer-reviewed, letters journal " (PDF) - Economics Bulletin- Indexed in Compendex Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI) - Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.- " E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed " - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)- " I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal. " - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands- " All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed " - Multi-Science Publishing- " Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed " - E&E Mission Statement- " Energy Policy is an international peer-reviewed journal " - Elsevier- " Environmental Geosciences is a peer-reviewed publication " - Environmental Geosciences- " In making the decision about the publication of a manuscript, the editor may ...confer with reviewers " - Eos- " The Editorial Board, with the help of external experts, reviews all manuscripts - " GSA Today lead science articles are refereed " - GSA Today- " The Journal is a prestigious peer-reviewed publication " - Irrigation and Drainage- " Iron & Steel Technology readers will find timely peer-reviewed articles " - Iron & Steel Technology- " Articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process " (PDF) - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons- " The journal referees and publishes original research papers, using rigorous standards of review " - JASTP- " Manuscripts will be sent to two or more referees " (PDF) - Journal of Scientific Exploration- " Thorough and constructive peer review " - Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences- " Manuscripts are judged by reviewers on the basis of their scientific merit, quality, supporting data and evidence " - New Concepts in Global Tectonics- " The establishment of the Editorial board and a peer review system in December 2005 enabled us to enhance the quality of the articles. " (PDF) - Dr. Dong R. Choi, Editor, New Concepts in Global Tectonics- " PAR uses a double-blind review process " - Public Administration Review- " Appropriate Referees should be knowledgeable about the subject but have no close connection with any of the authors " - Spectrochimica Acta Part A- " All papers are refereed " - The Cato Journal- " ...which is used in the peer-review process " - The Electricity Journal- " The Electricity Journal, a peer-reviewed scholarly publication " - Richard Cohen, Editor, The Electricity Journal- " The Independent Review is thoroughly researched, peer-reviewed, and based on scholarship of the highest caliber " - The Independent ReviewArticles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles are all peer-reviewed . Other contributed articles and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.Many popular journals like Nature frequently reject papers arbitrarily, " ...each Nature journal has to decline many papers of very high quality " - Naturehas been around for over 65 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Government Institutions and Public Libraries.(defined) "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." defined ) "the attitudes and behavior of one who exaggerates dangers or always expects disaster." defined ) "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin."(defined) "is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature." defined ) "are short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields. These should not be confused with." defined ) "of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication." defined ) "a piece of writing on an academic subject." defined ) "a word or phrase that qualifies the sense of another word; for example, the noun alarm is a modifier of clock in alarm clock." defined ) "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual []." (e.g. Richard S. Lindzen, John R. Christy, Sherwood B. Idsoand Patrick J. Michaels defined ) "to help to show something to be true." PDF ) ( PDF ) ( Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (PDF)Abstracts and summaries have been obtained from the journal or publisher's website and various indexes such as; ArXiv, Astrophysics Data System (ADS), Citeseer, CSA Illumina, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Energy Citations Database (ECD), IngentaConnect, JSTOR, PubMed, SpringerLink, Refdoc and Wiley Online Library.10-23-09 - 450+ Peer-Reviewed Papers12-13-09 - 500+ Peer-Reviewed Papers04-21-10 - 700+ Peer-Reviewed Papers06-20-10 - 750+ Peer-Reviewed Papers07-25-10 - 800+ Peer-Reviewed Papers01-14-11 - 850+ Peer-Reviewed Papers04-13-11 - 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers05-17-12 - 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers07-23-12 - 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers02-12-14 - 1350+ Peer-Reviewed PapersThe editors at Popular Technology.net would like to thank Adam Jayne for his extensive assistance with compiling the list, Dr. Khandekar for his ' Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Papers ', Dr. Idso for his research at CO2 Science and Dr. Michaels for his research at World Climate Report