The idea that there is a scientific "consensus" regarding anthropogenic global-warming has its roots in the controversial article written in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes purporting to have established consensus among peer-reviewed climatologists and, second, from statements of the U.N. climate-study steering committee (IPCC) charged with investigating the case for AGW and determining likely impacts.

Read just about any newspaper, magazine, professional journal or opinion website, and you will find statements and headlines of the type:

“There is consensus in the scientific community that Earth's climate is heating and that human activity is the cause.”

“Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are causing the Earth’s climate to change and warm, which will have catastrophic results if we do not act to reduce them. Carbon dioxide emissions are about 40% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution and at their highest levels in recorded history, covering over 650,000 years.”

“With this system, organizations can assess the climate-change impact of their buildings.”

“. . . largest private solar roof in Manhattan, which will . . . eliminate carbon dioxide, and . . .”

“. . . Improves gas mileage and emissions.  A great way to shrink your carbon footprint; increases fuel economy up to 35%.  Only $39.95.  Guaranteed!”

“Offsetting your carbon footprint allows you to become part of the solution to climate change by supporting the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions equal to your carbon emissions.”

“Land and sea temperatures . . . have risen sharply under the influence of climate change . . . a government report said.”

"Such warmer waters fuel the formation and ferocity of hurricanes.  Warmer oceans are an inseparable by-product of global warming, and it's foolish to ignore the link to the burning of fossil fuels."

“. . . glaciers melting in Greenland prove the planet is warming . . . man-made CO2 responsible . . .”

“Global Warming Threatens Polar Bears with Extinction!”

“The World Health Organization said Thursday an estimated 77,000 deaths are recorded annually in the Asia-Pacific region due to health problems arising from global warming.”

There is a battle brewing over anthropogenic global-warming (AGW), and, as in all wars, the first casualty is truth.  All of the above statements have in common that they are, in full or part, untrue.  It is, so far, only theorized that greenhouse gases (GHG) and ozone depleting substances (ODS) are the primary culprits of observed warming – not proved.  It is only hypothesized that warming bodes large scale climatic disasters.  And, it is wishful thinking of a tall order that the data and models available are sufficient to determine the true state and change in climate.  The remaining statements are all predicated on the single notion that global warming has been proved beyond dispute and is a human artifact; and is, therefore amenable to or answerable for a wide body of secondary effects.

At most, you can prove those deaths in Asia-Pacifica were weather related.  One of the statements is an improbable product-endorsement (for reasons other than AGW).  But, hey, if you are already stretching the truth, what’s a little piling on of feel-good, political-correctness going to hurt?  And, some are just plain ignorant of what AGW is all about, such as New York’s mayor installing solar panels on rooftops in part to “eliminate carbon dioxide” from our atmosphere (gee, I sure hope not, because, last time I checked, plants still need it and we’d have some difficulty exhaling).

This article does not propose to dispute the merits of AGW theory.  My object is to dispute the notion that the science is settled and there is no more need of debate.

A. There is no scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is significant.

The claim of consensus is a distortion of the judgment of the scientific community; one that has caused considerable rancor within the community itself and harm to its reputation; and not a little harm to polite discourse.  It has two sources.  First, is the controversial article written in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes purporting to have established consensus among peer-reviewed climatologists and, second, from statements of the U.N. climate-study steering committee (IPCC) charged with investigating the case for AGW and determining likely impacts.

Oreskes searched the on-line scientific literature to establish a "consensus exists among climatologists" by counting up those scientists who wrote abstracts for or against anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  Her [1] study only looked at the abstracts of these studies, not the full text or any qualifiers contained therein.  She did not query the scientists directly whether they thought AGW was real or whether their studies represented prevailing scientific opinion.  Regardless of whether a majority of all relevant scientists strongly or partly agree that AGW exists, her survey is insufficient by itself to establish that. 

The survey was flawed in other respects; for example: placement of scientists into ‘for-against’ categories were, in many cases, a matter of her personal judgment rather than any measurable criteria.

A skeptic ([2] Peiser) repeated her meta-search using similar criteria and came up with 1,247 hits as against her 938 (1,117 matching Oreskes later-amended criteria).  Peiser also came to an entirely different conclusion.  These suggests that either Oreskes was too "selective" or that any study purporting to establish consensus in this manner is inherently subjective.  Oreskes charged that Peiser did not follow her protocol precisely, and included many articles that were not peer reviewed; and that these deficiencies invalidate his challenge.  Nonetheless, the quality of Peiser’s additional articles and his more rigorous treatment are sufficient to dispute her "consensus."   Peiser concedes some of her points, yet contends her assignments in the 'for' and 'against' columns are dubious.

Oreskes timed the release of her study to coincide with the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10); suggesting an agenda (supported by other papers she's published and known environmentalism).  Tellingly, no one has come forward, even among AGW proponents, to demonstrate her research is repeatable.   At least one other survey finds that, among all climate scientists, the breakdown is 9.4% strongly for AGW, 9.7% strongly against, with the rest voicing varying degrees of weak partisanship to non-judgment.   This distribution seems more probable than Oreskes' survey, given the embryonic state of climate knowledge and tendency of scientists to guard their reputations.

In a more recent study of U.S. state climatologists only (direct polling), the split was 17% for and 44% against (17:44), virtually identical with Peiser’s result (13:34).

The other source of this myth is the United Nations IPCC steering committee, an organization more political than scientific, with a clear AGW agenda, and biased toward climate modeling over other research outcomes.   Modelers are but one group of scientists in the AGW debate, but they have a huge investment of time, funding and position in proving that AGW is real and potentially catastrophic (the minute it is proven otherwise, their funding is apt to vanish; ditto for the IPCC).

One report has the IPCC steering committee thrice publishing its own summary report overriding and embellishing the actual findings of its contributor scientists.  Some of these scientists have since complained that IPCC misrepresented their findings to overstate the case for AGW.

Not every scientist has complained against the committee, but enough to discredit IPCC as an impartial body. Each time this happened, the committee published its synopsis many months prior to publishing the scientists’ reports in an apparent bid at steering public policy.  By the time the real report was published, the committee had stolen a march on media opinion and Governments were trapped in policies no one wants to disavow.  In each instance, their summaries claim the data (when presented) would support the committee's contention that global warming is man-made and potentially disastrous; and, most recently, that the evidence is undeniable.  In each instance, scientists countered that their evidence is no better than suggestive of AGW; only to be ignored.  The findings (when eventually published) provided only weak support for AGW and, in some cases, supported alternative explanations.

In none of these cases has the public been apprised of the distortions.  Instead, the media and Al Gore repeat and propagate disinformation as though there was no remaining doubt; Gore is now parroted by reputable professional organizations and climate reporters.

Having created a myth of consensus, we see an unfortunate tendency among scientists, engineers, and technical professionals to concede an AGW victory.  Worse, they feel an altruistic obligation to participate in costly makeshift "solutions."  However, on what basis do they concede and what relevance would it have, even if true?  If they do not study climate or have not taken time to study the findings, what matters their opinion more than a stockbroker or Hollywood diva?

I query people how they came by this certain knowledge without ever having studied the science, evidence, models, and debate. Overwhelmingly, the answer I get is: because they have heard or read it so reported in the media or government pronouncements, and because they no longer hear anyone disputing it.  So today, among non-climatologic scientists, it may very well be true there is such a consensus or convergence; but, if so, it must be a consensus of apathy, defeat, or conformity.  It still does not make a consensus among those who specifically study climate.  More to the point, there is even less possibility for determining this is the opinion of the general scientific community; or just a general impression of that opinion shaped in the absence of an effective challenge.

The purported consensus has been fueled partly by browbeating the public and limiting the terms of debate, partly by tarring those who object, partly by the desire to profit from anxiety, and partly by restricting who counts as an expert or dismissing substantial experts as irrelevant.  The deliberate attacking and smearing of skeptics-of-note has gone on for sometime, usually silencing debate by portraying those who object as heedless and exploitative of the environment, sustainability, the future, and that perennial dialog douser, "the children."  Most recently, we are portrayed as being "in denial" (likened to Holocaust deniers).

Of what are we supposed to be in denial?  Going along?  Dread of being labeled contrarian is irrational yet powerful.  Many people (including scientists) are jumping on the AGW bandwagon for that reason and no other.  The irony being that, by jumping on for the wrong rather than right reasons, they are behaving irrationally . . . like so many stampeded cattle.

Oreskes’ study is an instance of restricting who counts, whereby she limits her search to peer-reviewed abstracts only.  The choice to limit this way may have been calculated because she was already conversant with this particular literature and knew that, by carefully choosing her criteria, she could disproportionately fetch affirming abstracts or, at least, those she could "assign" as positive.  It is even possible she tried out a variety of criteria until reaching an optimal result.  One way to test for this would be to vary her criteria to see if still more positive results are attainable.  Given the high-subjectivity of her criteria (as demonstrated by Peiser) and growing scientific complaint against consensus, this speculation has some merit.

Censorship is further reinforced by marginalizing or outing scientists who publicly object, as happened to Dr. William Gray (Professor Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State and a leading hurricane predictor), [3] Dr. S. Fred Singer, and Dr. Roy Spencer (former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA-Huntsville); and, to a lesser extent Dr. Chris Landsea (former Science & Operations officer at the NOAA National Hurricane Center and an IPCC research contributor).  All four scientists have unimpeachable credentials and should be listened to.  Instead, all four have been marginalized as "cranks" and/or "cronies in the pay of Big-Oil."  The reality is money goes to those willing to research AGW's potential; while those critical of it go unfunded, under-funded, and their reputations are sullied.  In this climate, many scientists may find it risky voicing views contradicting the well-orchestrated but unscientific narratives of the wider public, administration, media, and activists.  How, then, can there be meaningful consensus where there is no room for dialog.

Far fewer people bother refuting nonsense than ignore it.  This, however unfortunate, is both normal and proper because they have better things to do with their time.  People join causes out of passion or fear, and only those vested with such passion or driven by fear contribute significant time and energy.  We don't waste ourselves combating those we regard as fools; we cultivate those we regard as sensible.  Because of this, it is far easier exciting foolishness than reason.  Most are too occupied with more immediate pursuits and willing, therefore, to concede anything that does not disturb them.  This leaves the field open to fanatics, fools, and scoundrels, who drive the rest of us crazy until we capitulate.

B. Consensus is not the right measure of validity.

Only proof is capable of that.  Does it matter that 99 of 100 experts say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west when the truth is the sun does no such thing (the earth spins, making it appear the sun rises and sets).  400-years ago, a lone genius peering through a new instrument shattered that conceit, yet we persist in viewing the Earth centrically.  AGW is another such conceit: the conceit that our activities are more significant than nature, and that even a small perturbation to a planet like ours is enough to disrupt a system robustly stable and favorable to life for some 3.8-billion years.  Thirty years ago the consensus was the earth was cooling and we'd soon plunge into an ice-age.  Forty years before that the consensus was for warming and in 1908 it was for cooling.  This is just the latest lurch in scientific conjecture; and media speculation more than scientific consensus.

Here is what Michael Crichton, scientist and noted author, says about consensus:

As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming.  Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.  Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

. . . the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.  Consensus is the business of politics.  Science . . . requires only one investigator who happens to be right; which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.   In science, consensus is irrelevant.   What is relevant is reproducible results.   The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

If you haven’t read Crichton’s novel State of Fear, by all means do so.  It not only describes the motives behind hype and data-manipulation; it is also good storytelling.

Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Because there are alternatives, because the all-important models are concededly flawed, because we don't know the balance between positive and negative feedbacks, because the sun’s contribution has been left out, because the data is spotty, because no one knows the actual long-term impacts, and because AGW is 9/10ths political, any claim made of consensus on the order described is a monumental conceit.

C. AGW is not the best predictor of events.

The current state of comprehension admits of alternative explanations, with more alternatives existing for natural causes of climate change than supporting it as man-made.  The most probable is also the oldest and most readily understood – the variability of our sun, our distance from it, and factors affecting how much of its energy reaches our surface (including trapping, aerosols, and albedo).  An effective model will include these extraterrestrial components as well as atmospheric and terrestrial components, and will give each the correct weighting.

Although the AGW climate models have been tweaked to resemble the 35-year historical record, they do so at the expense of introducing disputable "fudge factors."  These are correction-algorithms used to improve fit.  Some are valid positive feedback mechanisms, but others have no other basis for being in the model other than providing correction or as "place holders" for missing elements.  Among these, valid negative feedbacks (those that damp response to inputs) have been given insufficient weight.  The models have been made sharply sensitive to some fudge factors, especially those tied to positive feedbacks; and it is these that are driving high rates of warming in the predictions.  If this weighting is wrong, then there is little cause to believe we have a usable model.  To my thinking, these models are only good for extrapolating future global temperature on the assumption that other factors can be held constant and the weighting for GHG is about right; giving us some better understanding of the GHG contribution, but not telling us the net result.

The better correlation between surface and solar data brings into sharp focus whether the models tell us anything really useful.  The long-term historical trend shows excellent correspondence between solar flux reaching the Earth's surface and global temperature as recorded in ice and soil strata.  Yet, this is ignored in favor of GHG models as an explanation for both recorded and predicted temperatures.  Solar flux appears to provide a very good fit to the long-term data and may be the better candidate for predicting near-term trends.  Even better, it does not require the complexity necessary to the AGW models.  Solar flux would also explain recent ice cap melting on Mars (though this could be coincidental); which Earth-based AGW models cannot possibly explain.  The obvious drawback to a solar-based model is predicting occasional anomalies.  Used retroactively for geological time-scales, AGW models predict rather poorly while solar variation tracks quite well.

The models cannot be "proven" in any meaningful sense for decades to come (by which time the modelers will all be safely dead and the models will have been altered beyond recognition).  The same, of course, can be said of solar and other alternate theories, but the point is not that one or the other prevails . . . it is that none so far are more than suggestive.

The other big problem with the AGW climate models, as Dr. Richard Lintzen points out, is that they depend too much on a rate of economic expansion at the extreme of what can occur.  Coupled with this is an improper assumption that: as economies expand, so must atmospheric CO2 increase.  Historically, this is easily shown to be false other than for emerging economies, and only if fossil fuel continues to be abundant.  Real economies tend to rein in waste as they mature, driven by shortage and quality concerns toward greater efficiency.  Thus, we see in mature economies a tendency for conservation (and, hence, lower per capita CO2 emissions), at least until some replacement energy can be found.  As the only other energy capable of sustaining us post-fossil-fuel is nuclear, the CO2 question ultimately becomes moot.

D. There is an accumulation of data . . . Yes, but it does not unequivocally support AGW.

The terms "climate change," "global-warming" and "man-made" are frequently and improperly used as though synonymous.  Climate change has always been with us and will be with us as long as our planet has an atmosphere.  The fact that the gathered data shows change only affirms what we have always known – climate varies.  What would be novel would be for it to not change.  The only thing the data (both older and recent) shows is that, yes, something is changing at locations where measurements are taken.  One criticism made is that too much of this data represents urban heat-islands, and that that is skewing the picture.  AGW model defenders dispute this has been the case, but have yet to show it has been adequately accounted for in the models.

Global warming exists to roughly the same extent as global cooling; that is, to about the same extent but in different parts of the planet; and, as such, is not truly global.  Glaciers melting do not prove global warming, as glaciers have always melted somewhere even as they form elsewhere or some other heat sink balances things out.  Each year, we get a tiny new bit of data to add to the growing pile.  The new data indicate much the same trends as the old data (except where humans muddy the waters).  Recent data has sometimes been manipulated to produce a semblance of acceleration (e.g., the infamous "hockey-stick"), and the reliability of corrections made to surface data are in constant dispute.  Global stratospheric data does not confirm the surface trend, suggesting that the latter may constitute localized effects not representative of the larger mass.  Some heat islands show flat or even declining temperatures; and, in some cases, have been corrected to explain them away (at least in public presentations).

The surface data mesh is far too coarse and badly distributed to say with certainty what even the surface trend is, making stratospheric and satellite data, so far, the better indicators.  Yet, it is surface data that is relied on as "proof" for AGW.  Because we do most of our data gathering in large, urban areas in the most developed parts of the planet, there are huge regions for which we have little or no surface and columnar data, and cannot say with certainty that the data is representative of the entire planet.  Because the data increasingly includes concentrations of heat, there may only be an appearance of man-made climate change, proving only a tendency of people to cluster.  It has been argued that the stratosphere may be sluggish or decoupling heat transfer at the interface between stratosphere and troposphere and that this is masking the true situation, giving surface and columnar data the appearance of greater relevance.  However, this is only valid for the dismissive reason that the upper atmosphere is not registering heat that climate modelers insist must be there; which, for all its elegance, is also unproven.

A recent report in [4] Nature Magazine says one of the fundamental assumptions in ozone-hole theory is flat wrong, reducing the rate of breakdown by a factor of ten and sending scientists scurrying to find alternate, hence "natural," explanations for 60% of the annual dissipation formerly attributed to man-made CFCs (meanwhile, government gleefully maintains it has fixed the problem).  If scientists are this far off on something as elementary as ozone, what’s the chance the far more intricate and patched up AGW models are flawed?

I think these guys are impressive having created models this complex; and the exercise has certainly enhanced our understanding of climate.  I just don’t think we are there yet, not even close. A single year's accretion of new data is not terribly significant when contemplating weather for the next century and beyond.  We need far more detailed data, better models, and much faster computers before we can predict on this scale.   I’ve read objections that it is actually easier predicting broad-stroke, decades-long climate changes than it is predicting next week’s local weather; and there is some truth in that – given you’ve got a proven prediction model (which we don’t).  Currently, we have about 35 years of moderately accurate data, but only covering a fraction of the planet.  In addition, we have 15 years of truly global stratospheric data and a model incapable of relating conflicting data to forcing mechanisms; then outputting a verifiable global temperature.

The modelers admit having discounted the stratospheric data on the premise it contradicts the near-surface data – a questionable practice in any science.  With what little we do have, we can barely predict the next three days of weather, much less the next century of climate.  We can make some rough predictions (right about 1/4 of the time, and not all that much better than we could a quarter-century ago) regarding how many hurricanes, snowfalls, or rainfalls we'll have in one pass around the sun.  Beyond that, it would be nothing less than miraculous for these dire predictions to prove true.

If you only go looking for global warming, that is all you will find because the evidence for it abounds (in the right places).  Evidence equally abounds of its opposite, but is "inconvenient" to those seeking but the one sort.

E. Not established warming is environmentally disastrous.

Even among scientists who agree the trend is toward warming, there is considerable disagreement as to what that portends.  Only a minority of activist-scientists concur with climate-alarmists. Geologists and at least two major hurricane trackers are telling us warm eras in the past may have been milder, and the link between global temperature and storms is overstated.  Warming does not impact all regions of the earth equally, affecting the poles more than tropics.  Therefore, it is probable that places like Canada, Russia, Siberia, southern Chile, and Greenland will benefit as they did in the Medieval Warm Period; while the tropics and subtropics will fare a little worse.

Chris Landsea believes global warming plays only a minor role in spawning larger and more frequent storms, and that the scenarios presented by alarmists like Gore are grossly exaggerated.  The real problem with hurricanes and tsunamis is people are increasingly nesting in their path.  Desertification is known to be increased more by cold and glacial periods than warm ones.  Plant growth is surging from milder temperatures and longer growing seasons, absorbing some of the excess CO2 and binding more water that would, otherwise, go into the atmosphere.  The net cost of heating and cooling of buildings from warming is slightly less, and the cost of transportation without having to clear snow, endure stormy runways, and heating car interiors is a big plus.  Therefore, it may be global warming is a net benefit rather than disaster for the planet.

F. The Big-Oil conspiracy - boiling skeptics in oil?

Perfectly reasonable statement typical of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:

Policies that attempt to manage climate change, particularly in the face of uncertainty, without considering its consequences to energy security or which prematurely alter economic vitality will adversely impact our ability to implement technological solutions to a wide range of issues.   Such policies may limit our ability to adapt to the inevitable impact of an increasing world population and associated environmental problems.

AGW's proponents make a big fuss about "oil interests spending huge sums distorting reality;" thereby spoiling an otherwise "perfect" consensus.  This is one of their most persuasive straw-men reinforcing the notion it is greedy oil companies driving denial; and that, but for them, the debate would be over and we could get on with the important business of arresting growth.  They neglect to mention oil money spent disputing AGW is insignificant compared to the money, support-base, vested interests, profits, and benefits accruing to the other side.  Careers have been built on the basis that AGW exists: credentials enhanced by substantiating it, government expanded to deal with it, taxes imposed allegedly to stifle it, TV & newspaper circulations and reputations padded, environmentalist coffers filled by it, carbon-credits dispensed absolving those guilty of it (at an obscene profit), insurance companies’ risk reduced by it, movies marketing it, and product ads promising they’ll fix it . . . just to name a few.

They fail to mention oil companies spend most of this money downplaying their role in AGW rather than disputing it.  Most oil companies go so far as to endorse AGW in the reasonable expectation their product will be favored in an environmentally "friendly" market.  This is because Big Oil long ago realized this is a fight they can't win.  This makes oil-company targeting a ruse for disarming remaining skeptics (of whatever origin), not of combating exploitation.  Just about anyone still "in-denial" is routinely accused of being "in the pay or pocket of oil companies" (in case you wonder, I haven’t worked for an oil company in decades and harbor less than a warm-fuzzy for the one I quit).

I sometimes liken climate-change hysteria to a comic routine I once saw.  In that burlesque, a man strolls to the middle of the road and suddenly stops because, far down the road, a slow-moving steamroller is headed at him with the driver soundly asleep at the stick.  The man in the roadway is struck insensible by this, and yelps for help.  He doesn’t move a muscle to extricate himself however – like some deer caught by headlights.  Sidewalk-bystanders begin wringing hands and imploring each other what to do.  Meanwhile, the steamroller plods mindlessly forward.  The mob, soon, has lost all semblance of reason as first one and then all shout at the steamroller and push their hands in its direction as if that might make it stop.  Meanwhile, the man in the road gets more and more frantic.  We (in the audience) know all he has to do is step out of the road or have one of the crowd pull him out; yet all behave as though incapable of reasonable action.  Several minutes are wasted in this manner until, predictably, the steamroller grinds the poor slob into the pavement and rolls quietly stage left.  Briefly, the crowd moans pityingly at the victim before dispersing.

A warming Earth may well portend change, but we needn’t react hysterically to it or with gestures that accomplish nothing.  Change is a given.  Like the hand-pushing of the comedy, carbon-credits, caps and tax disincentives are expensive empty gestures that do nothing to stop change, regardless of our tiny contribution.  We can’t make a measurable dent that way, and the attempt would bankrupt us in any case.  The appropriate solution, therefore, is to step out of the steamrollers’ path – when and if that proves more than a delusion of our fevered brains.

For a fresh look at AGW from a skeptical perspective, I recommend the following links:

[5] http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

[6] http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8497

[7] http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/mission.jsp

[8] http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/abtsepp.html

[9] http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71

[10] http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/07/global-warming-no-debate-reporting-bias.html

[11] http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

[12] http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

[13] http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[14] http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070522_isdo.pdf

[15] http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070321_ball.ppt

[16] http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-06-09/dangers.htm

[17] http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm

[18] http://www.cei.org/pdf/ait/chXVII.pdf

[19] http://www.cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf

[20] http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba378/ba378.pdf – especially read Conclusion

[21] http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544

[22] http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/offset_calc.htm – explanation of carbon-credit fallacy and outright fraud.

[23] http://www.alternet.org/story/49025/ - criticism of carbon trading (credits, offsets, &c) by an AGW believer

[24] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html – outing of Dr. Gray

[25] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544248 - Gore’s attacks on scientists Singer, Happer, & Ellsaesser

[26] http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9358 – Chris Landsea’s reasons for quitting prestigious NOAA position