Firstly - let me congratulate you!!! Some 68 pages into this thread, and countless requests for somebody to show any actual scientific papers published which argue that AGW is not occurring - and someone has finallly had a crack at it!!

Well done you!


...now, lets see what we have here shall we,

Oh dear. Not a good start.

This paper was originally sent out with the infamous Oregon Petition. It was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of the Sciences responded with:
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Your link shows that the paper was eventually puplished in Energy & Environment - a social science journal not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa..._skeptics.html

The "paper" is authored by a biochemist, his 22 year old son and an astrophysisist. Not really climate science experts.




More from our friend Willie Soon, and his astropysisist mate Sallie Baliunas.
These guys generally like to take something they do know about - solar variability - and apply it to something they don't know about - CO2 forcing.

Yes - these are 2 rare examples of peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers.
I can't find an abstract for the Progress in Physical Geography paper, but the Climate Research one was widely criticised:
"...13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work. There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_...s#cite_note-12


and onto old Freddie Singer, who claims not only to be an expert on climate change, but also atomic energy and tobacco smoke!

The first of those papers was published in EOS - which is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is the AGU's newsletter.

The second is definitley an example of a scientific paper that argues against AGW. It is the one I have been expecting to be quoted now for some 68 pages! At last someone found it! Well done!

It has been widely criticised for it's very selective use of data - but we can address that another time.

Your third reference is a letter related to the same issue as the 2nd paper


This paper concludes:

There is no controversy surrounding the claim that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are on the rise; direct measurements demonstrate that fact. The basic con- cept of the greenhouse effect is also not in question; rising carbon dioxide concentrations, in and of themselves, clearly enhance the thermal blanketing properties of the atmosphere. What is debatable, however, is the magnitude of any warming that might result from a
rise in the air’s CO2 concentration.

Fair enough. That is not arguing that AGW is not occurring.



Yet another paper that accepts the occurance of AGW - but questions the magnetude of impact. Fine - there is plenty of room for debate there. It is not arguing that AGW is not occurring.




...in which Mr Lindzen tells us:

...increasing CO2 is likely to cause some climate change, and that the resulting change will involve average warming of the earth
Yes Mr Lindzen - I agree with you

[/quote]

Why indeed.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P