AGW Observer

Observations of anthropogenic global warming

Anti-AGW papers debunked

Posted by Ari Jokimäki on January 12, 2010

I have added a new page: Anti-AGW papers debunked.

It is a resource that helps you to find debunkings of the papers that have been used to advance anti-AGW views. The list is sorted alphabetically by first author. The list doesn’t contain any explanations, just links to the relevant information as briefly as possible. There is only a handful of papers so far, but I will build the list as time goes by.

This is the thread for any feedback, suggestions, etc. for this resource.


31 Responses to “Anti-AGW papers debunked”

  1. AGW is founded on three ‘pillars:’ Two patently, fallacious graphs and a noncept. The MBH98 graph was summarily deconstructed and is no longer used in IPCC issues and the Keeling curve requires the human addition of 10**14 pounds of CO2 per year over 40 years which is nonsense on its own. If there were such a thing as GreenHouse Effect the earth would be a boiling cauldron. Consider: If a molecule near the planet’s surface radiates energy, that molecule must Cool; That’s Thermo 101 and anything absorbing that radiated energy would have to warm; That’s Thermo 102 and these are the reasons we keep telling the AGW perps that their ‘science’ violates both laws of Physics.

    Thanks and Enjoy your Day,

    Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

  2. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thank you for your opinion, but that’s off-topic in this thread. I hope that discussion in this thread stays on the “Anti-AGW papers debunked” resource only.

  3. Ari: My apologies if I have breached a protocol of your web page. It was to show that it’s not necessary to use a 100 pages — as in G&T — but AGW could be repudiated in a paragraph of Physics.

    Enjoy the Day, or Evening.

    DR Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

  4. Smokey said

    Out of literally thousands of papers, you’ve found THREE that supposedly “debunk” anti-AGW??

    In fact, if AGW exists, it is too insignificant to empirically measure.

    I would like to invite you to come on over to and learn the facts. Really. You will find that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better. Agricultural production has substantially increased as a result of more CO2. In a world where over a billion people subsist on less than $1 a day, lowering CO2 levels would literally starve people.

    But that will not happen, because China, India, Brazil, and a hundred smaller countries are industrializing at a rapid rate, and will emit MUCH more CO2 than the West can possibly counter in reductions. The true pollution is from particulates like soot. But soot can’t be taxed nearly as effectively as “carbon,” so beneficial CO2 is demonized, and soot is an afterthought.

    Finally, the null hypothesis of natural climate variability has never been falsified – while those promoting the AGW scare have been repeatedly debunked, beginning with Michael Mann’s discredited Hokey Stick.

    Don’t stay on the wrong side of the debate. Scientific skeptics are converting the undecided, because the facts are with the skeptics, not with three (3) grant-fishing papers. Word up to the wise.

  5. Ari Jokimäki said

    Out of literally thousands of papers, you’ve found THREE that supposedly “debunk” anti-AGW??

    Having trouble counting I see. 🙂

    In fact, if AGW exists, it is too insignificant to empirically measure.


    I would like to invite you to come on over to and learn the facts.

    As far as facts go, I have learned that the site you advertise has remarkably poor concentration of facts. If you want to waste your time on that nonsense, I recommend you read it through this site:

    For the rest, I know that there are hundreds of standard denier “arguments” you can parrot here, but I would like to ask you to stay on the topic. If you can’t do that, at least provide proof for your claims next time. Without that they are just empty declarations.

  6. Smokey said

    Boy, you beclown yourself with your ignorance of the scientific method.

    Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the purveyors of the repeatedly DEBUNKED catastrophic AGW pseudo-science [CO2=CAGW] who have the onus of showing, through empirical, testable and reproducible facts, that their alternate hypothesis explains reality better than the NULL HYPOTHESIS of natural climate variability. They have failed; the null has never been falsified, which is why you fall back on the false authority of silly computer models, and why you shy away from honest facts, and why your side runs and hides from the bitch-slapping they consistently get in public debates with skeptics.

    We could have had a reasonable conversation and you would have learned some interesting facts, but instead you chose name-calling, exposing your insecurity. Anyone who still uses the lame ad-hom “deniers” label has decisively lost the argument; labels take the place of logic in AGW clown land, and you get what you started, doubled and squared.

    Climate alarmists always run and hide from the scientific method, which easily falsifies their cognitive dissonance-afflicted religious belief system. Forget your always-wrong computer models. As Prof Richard Feynman stressed, empirical observations are what matters, and if the models conflict with observations, the models are WRONG. And the GCMs you mindlessly worship are ALWAYS wrong. Tropo hot spot? heh

    Your one-sided propaganda blog has almost zero traffic.☺ Compare that with the internet’s “BEST SCIENCE” site — which has rocketed from zero to 60 million hits in only 3 years, with almost 500,000 reader comments. I note the number of comments here — and laugh out loud. You make a fool of yourself with your ignorance of the scientific method.

    So go ahead and continue eating Cheetos and surfing porn sites in your mom’s basement, and wasting countless hours of your addled life on this pathetic excuse of a blog. As for me, I’m going back to the BEST SCIENCE site, where readers and commentators have forgotten more than you will ever learn about honest, straightforward science and the truth about the climate: it is boringly normal, temperatures are well within historical parameters, and your predictions of doom are no more valid than the ALAR scare, the Y2K scare, the swine flu scare, and every other bogus scare that rational people laugh about.

    But first, one more look at Alexa. I need a good chuckle.

  7. Ari Jokimäki said

    So, no staying on topic and no providing proofs to your claims then? 🙂

  8. john byatt said

    thanks for a great public service Ari, just shook my head when I read “troppo hot spot eh”..

  9. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thank you John. 🙂

  10. jimca said

    A minor editorial suggestion: It would help to make a more explicit listing of original paper and rebuttal.

    Something like:

    Original: xxx
    Rebuttal 1: yy1, response to rebuttal 1: zz1
    Rebutall 2: yy2, response to rebuttal 2: zz2

  11. J Bowers said

    “Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove.”

    You do. You need to come up with an alternative explanation for temperature increase over the past 50 years which ye Rejectionists have consistently failed to do. Until then, policy should be decided on that which every national science academy on the planet states is the best explanation – CO2 emissions.

  12. J Bowers said

    Ari, Barton Paul Levenson has a Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong page.

  13. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It seems that this page has gone long enough without thorough updates, so I think I’ll do a maintenance round on this page in next few days.

  14. Zack said

    Great work on this site Ari.
    I’ve sent out copies of my “layman’s” analogy on the cause for the current glacier melt on Himalayas and Arctic Melt to over 20 researchers all over whom I thought might be relevant to this, including Dr Manabe from the IPCC reviewing committee. The one factor that has not been reviewed in depth and increasing in numbers. It hasn’t got any empircal data just very basic school science logic which I think they have completely missed out on. I hope they will read it though, or at least I tried. I’ll send you a copy if you like…

  15. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thanks, Zack. Sorry for late response and keeping your posts in moderation queue so long but I was offline for a week due to summer vacation. Sure, send me a copy, you can find my e-mail address from the ‘about’ page.

  16. Paul Middents said


    Science of Doom has just posted on climate sensitivity.

    He draws heavily on Spencer & Braswell 2008 but notes that Murphy & Forster 2010

    refute Spencer & Braswell 2008. Also, I think it is Min et. al that should be listed as refuting S & B 2008 rather than Lin.

    Paul Middents

  17. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thanks, Paul. I added Murphy & Forster (2010). I also added the latest papers in the Spencer & Braswell (+ Lindzen & Choi) saga.

  18. Ari Jokimäki said

    Oh, I think you are wrong on Min et al. 🙂

  19. Paul Middents said

    I can only blame the window size and the excessive font size I now require to read the screen. A really politically incorrect excuse occurred to me but I will resist posting it.

  20. Al Rodger said

    An excellent format for cataloging ‘debunkments’. I shall enjoy delving into the arrayed links. May I also offer an addition to your catalogue courtesy of Yours Truely –

  21. Ari Jokimäki said

    Thanks, I added your article. 🙂

  22. Ari Jokimäki said

    I finally did some maintenance on this resource. I reformatted the list and added a few papers (mainly Idso). I also started adding the names of papers to the list but that’s ongoing project… There are also some other things to do, such as correcting dead links, but hopefully I continue with this soon. Also, lot of papers are waiting to be added which I also hope to do in near future. This resource has been unupdated for too long.

  23. Billovitch said

    Ari, The bibliography of anti-AGW papers is an excellent resource. Well done. Unfortunately I am not able to access anything after “idso”. Are you aware of a bug here.


  24. Ari Jokimäki said

    Hi Bill, I checked the page and it seems to work for me. Do you have more details (you can’t see any links, or linked pages just won’t open, or…)?

  25. KR said

    The list just ends at Idso 1990, no further papers listed. This occurs under all current browsers.

    I had been specifically looking for McLean – it’s just not there (or at least, visible) any more.

  26. Ari Jokimäki said

    This was strange. The page worked for me normally. I even edited it few days ago and could see the edits that were well after Idso. Now I tried it with another PC and it didn’t show anything after Idso (1980). There were some #-characters in Springer links that seemed to have messed the page up. I removed the characters and now it seems to work. Please tell me if it still doesn’t work.

  27. KR said

    Looks good!

    Unexpected HTML side effects happen to everyone with a web page…

  28. KR said

    Side note: the link to “Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” doesn’t work – I would suggest either of these:

    Click to access influenceofenso.pdf

  29. Ari Jokimäki said

    Link fixed, thanks! An ever increasing problem with a linklist website like this one is dead links.

  30. Ben said

    Can you add one for this

  31. Ari Jokimäki said

    Sorry, but this resource is for peer-reviewed research papers and that doesn’t seem to be one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: