UPDATE: It’s now 900 peer reviewed papers. See PopTech for the additions and answers to all the common criticisms.
Counting papers is not science, but it’s a hell of a way to show just how counterfeit the line is that “deniers” deny the evidence.
The PopularTechnology list of peer reviewed papers is still growing and is up to 900 now. After thousands of sneering believers have ridiculed skeptics because “what-ever-you-say hasn’t been peer reviewed“, when they are given a list of hundreds of peer reviewed references, do they suddenly appear gracious, discover polite conversation and show an interest in the evidence? Not so. Instead, the sneer shifts gear, and attack the list of 800 papers because some of the papers are only a correction, an erratum, a submission (unpublished), a comment, an addendum, or a reply. And that’s a bluff too. Because if they had actually counted the list they’d know that there are a more items on the list than 800. The guys at PopularTech keep those not-peer-reviewed-but-valuable parts of the scientific conversation in the list, they just don’t count them. So this list is really 800 peer reviewed references plus other supporting material.
Naomi Oreskes claimed that the consensus was so solid that 100% of the peer reviewed papers published supported the AGW hypothesis. She was wrong. (Thanks to Eddy’s comment).
The number of peer reviewed papers doesn’t tell us about the climate around the Earth, but it tells us about the climate of politics-power-and-PR here on Earth. Half of the people at the party won’t even admit the other half have something to say.
There are many ways to shut down conversations and stop people discussing “the evidence”. Calling them names is one. Then there’s bluster, bullying, and just repeating the same untruth ad nauseaum.
Who are the deniers now?
in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
…
For random trivia (and I do mean trivia), some of the names appear multiple times. Apologies to the greats I’ve left off this ad hoc collection.
Idso = 72 (Both Sherwood and Craig), Lindzen = 22, Spencer = 6, Douglass = 14, McIntyre = 9. McKitrick = 17, de Freitas = 10, Carter 10, Michaels = 29, Soon = 23, Baliunas = 17, Pielke Jr 13, Pielke Sr 16.
One point to draw from this are the Idso’s, who’ve been working for skeptical science, and fighting for empirical evidence since at least the mid seventies. Craig Idso runs CO2science, a fabulous resource for anything to do with the Medieval warm period, Co2’s effect on plant growth, and ocean acidification. The Idso’s deserve a loooong round of applause, and so do the guys at PopTech. This list is an excellent resource.
“The inclusion of a paper in the Pop tech list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors”.
Lets compile our favourite top ten papers?
(If you could only take ten papers to a debate with someone from the Big Scare Campaign, which ones would you take?)
UPDATE
Rereke replies: I would take ten writs for theft of public money, made out in the names of the “top eight” players in the hockey team – plus the two nauseous Nobel Prize winners.