The letter science magazine rejected

Energy and Environment

Volumn 16, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 685-687

  Peiser, Benny ^a  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22344435022     PISSN: 0958305X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1260/0958305054672330     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http:// www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
2. Oreskes, N. (2005). Correction. Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5708, 355
3. ISI Web of Science, (http://www.webofscience.com/)
4. 2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
5. Ammann, C. M. et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201.
6. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37(2): 391-405.
7. Russian scientists Kondratyev, K., and Varotsos, C. criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change";
8. K. Kondratyev and C. Varotsos (1996). Annual Review ofEnergy and the Environment. 21: 31-67.
9. M.E. Fernau et al. stress: "More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult",
10. M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25(8): 850-863.
11. "Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs." Linden, H.R. (1996). The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21: 31-67.
12. Gerhard, L.C., and Hanson, B.M. (2000). AAPG Bulletin 84(4): 466-471.