:''See also [[Counterexamples to Global Warming|Counterexamples to global warming]]''
[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are almost cooling.<ref>Roberts, Greg (April 18, 2009). [http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191 "Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away."] News.com.au. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref>]]The '''Anthropogenic global warming''' (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the [[liberal]] hoax<ref>Multiple references:*Dalmia, Shikha (December 2, 2009)Earth to warm. [http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html "Cringing over Climategate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.*Taylor, James (November 23, 2011). [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ "Climategate 2.0: New e-mails rock the global warming debate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> The theory posits that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Liberals have used Industrial and vehicular emissions could therefore lead to catastrophic warming in the near future. Environmentalists use this theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] as a basis to seek rationing by government of life-saving propose cuts in energy production and consumption.
'''''The most accurate data—from satellites—confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998'''''.<ref>Bailey, Ronald (December 26, A reanalysis of weather station data for 1943 to 2012)by Dr. [http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-s "34 years of satellite temperature data show global warming is on Roy Spencer shows that after a plateau"]cooler period in the 1960s and 1970s, U. Hit & Run Blog/ReasonS.com. Retrieved on September 25, 2014temperatures returned to their earlier level.</ref> The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers,<ref>Cole, Steve Spencer corrects for the fact that at most stations measurement time of day has changed over the years. This is something the NASA and McCarthy, Leslie (January 12, 2011)NOAA temperature histories fail to do. [http://wwwThe 1930s were warmer than the 1940s.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html "NASA research finds 2010 tied for So Spencer's analysis implies that the warmest year on record"]. NASA website. Retrieved on September 25was 1934, 2014.</ref> when not 2016 as the more scientific atmospheric temperature does not show such an increaseclimate establishment maintains.<ref>Tisdale, Bob (August 10Spencer, Roy, 2012). "[http://wattsupwiththatwww.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/10/nota-hotnew-oceananalysis-sstof-aroundu-thes-usatemperature-nottrends-anywheresince-near-record-levels1943/ "Not so hot—ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]A New Analysis of U. Watts Up with That? Retrieved on September 25, 2014S.</ref> MoreoverTemperature Trends Since 1943], natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity" August 6th, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age2012.<ref name="Time">"Science: Another Ice Age?" (June 24, 1974). ''Time'' magazine. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> [[Global cooling]]There are also temperature records based on weather balloon data and satellite readings, a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological historybut these records do not go back as far.<ref name="dissidents">"After any given warming phase beginsAlthough recent climate trends are much discussed in the media, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in AGW theory is not about the sun's heat kicks inmodest temperature shifts that have been recorded. The warming stopsAGW posits, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." Cockburn, Alexander (June 9–11, 2007). [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html "Dissidents against dogma"]. Counterpunch. Retrieved based on September 25computer modelling, 2014.</ref> The ease that a period of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global rapid warming hysteriais imminent.
Difficulties with the theory:*'''Carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.''' The level of CO<sub>2</sub> in the Earth's atmosphere is only 400 parts per million. Ninety to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.<ref>Friedenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264)</ref> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that water vapor acts as a "positive feedback," i.e. warming creates more humidity, which leads to additional warming. There are humidity measurements going back to 1948, and they show no upward trend.<ref>"[https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/ global climate]," ''Watt's Up with That''</ref> More humidity could lead to more clouds and therefore to cooling and to negative feedback. So why assume positive feedback? AGW works only if water vapor is a positive feedback, so that is what the IPCC must claim.<br/>Although Obama has denounced elevated carbon dioxide levels as "carbon pollution," greenhouse operators commonly increase the level of CO<sub>2</sub> to 1,000 ppm or more to enhance plant growth.<ref>"[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151210101819.htm Plant growth enhanced by increased carbon dioxide, but food webs give rise to significant variations]", ''Science News'', December 10, 2015.<br/>Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, "[http://arizonaskywatch.com/article/articles/In%20defense%20of%20carbon%20dioxide.pdf In Defense of Carbon Dioxide]," ''Wall Street Journal'', May 8, 2013.</ref>*'''The Earth has warmed or cooled many times. Historically, warm periods are associated with favorable climate.''' The [[Roman Warm Period]] (250 BC to 400 AD) was followed by the Dark Ages Cold Period (450-950 AD).<ref>"[http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/dacpeurope.php Dark Ages Cold Period (Europe) - Summary]", ''CO<sub>2</sub> Science'', 1 June 2005.</ref> The Medieval Warm Period lasted from 900 to 1300. From the 14th century to the early 19th century, there was a Little Ice Age.<ref>Bastasch, Michael, "[http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/ Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times]", ''The Daily Caller''. For a peer-reviewed paper, see Moberg, A., et al. 2005 "[ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt 2,000-Year Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction]", ''World Data Center for Paleoclimatology''. The Moberg data set is charted [https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Moberg-1.png here].</ref>*'''For leftists, the attraction of the theory is that it supports their agenda.''' The environmentalist agenda of renewables, solar energy, conservation, and world government was put together in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis and to the overpopulation scare. At that time, most scientists thought the Earth was cooling.<ref>"[http://realclimatescience.com/the-corrupt-history-of-nasa-temperature-history/ The corrupt history of NASA temperature history]", ''Real Climate Science''.</ref><ref name="Time" /> When AGW came along, it was treated as an additional justification for this agenda.<br/>Steven Schneider, founding father of the AGW movement, was a global cooling believer in the early 1970s. "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have," he explained.<ref>This is from an article Schneider wrote for ''Discover'' magazine in 1989.[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=67]</ref> To Schneider, global cooling and global warming were just two "scary senarios." He could offer up whichever one was expedient.<br/>If the problem was simply too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this could be addressed by promoting plant growth in the oceans.<ref>Carrington, Damian, "[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows]" ''The Guardian'', 18 July 2012.</ref> Such "geoengineering" doesn't appeal to liberals because AGW is less about the climate than about justifying the anti-energy cause. Scratch an AGW believer and there is an overpopulationist or a world government socialist underneath.*'''If the theory was valid, supporters wouldn't be reduced to depending on fraud.''' The Climategate emails show hoaxers scurrying to "hide the decline."<ref>"[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html#quEdWPhB8b6cs07f.99 Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]", ''MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis''</ref> The "hockey stick" view of climate history, which holds that global temperature was constant for 2,000 years and then surged in the last century, has been thoroughly debunked.<ref>Muller, Richard A., "[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell]", ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.</ref> It is a view at odds with several hypotheses considered well-established in this field, including the Medieval Warm Period<ref>John P. Rafferty, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period Medieval warm period (MWP)]", ''Britannica''</ref> and the Little Ice Age.<ref>John P. Rafferty, Stephen T. Jackson, "[https://global.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age Little Ice Age (LIA)]", ''Britannica''.</ref><ref>See the graphs at "[http://www.climate4you.com/ Global temperatures]," Climate4you.</ref> ==History==In 1827, French scientist Joseph Fourier suggested that although the atmosphere allowed sunlight to pass though to warm the Earth, it blocked "dark heat" (infrared radiation) from the Earth and thus prevented energy from being transferred back into space.<ref name=Fourier>Fourier, Jean Baptist Joseph, "On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere in Interplanetary Space", ''The Warming Papers'' (translation), pp. 12-13.</ref> Fourier did make an unfortunate analogy between the Earth's atmosphere and a space enclosed by glass. All the same, it may not be fair to blame Fourier for the greenhouse effect meme. He also discusses convection as an alternative explanation and, as a good scientist, recommends an experiment to resolve the issue. In 1861, Irish scientist John Tyndall measured the absorption of radiant energy by various gases in the atmosphere. He concluded that water vapor was the gas primarily responsible. It could therefore be considered the warming agent that Fourier hypothesized. Tyndall suggested that changes in humidity could bring about climate change. The AGW theory was first presented in 1896 in an article by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. Arrhenius predicted that a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning would lead to a temperature increase of 3 to 4 °C (about 5 to 7 °F) after 500 years. Arrhenius attributes his misunderstanding of the science to Fourier: "Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse."<ref>Arrhenius, Svante, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air on the Temperature on the Ground", ''The Warming Papers'', pp. 56-77 (reprint).</ref> The use of the Swedish word ''drivbänk'' (hothouse) by Arrhenius and his colleagues is likely to be the origin of the phrase "greenhouse effect." This phrase is first recorded in English in 1907 in a journal letter to the editor by English scientist John Henry Poynting.<ref>"[http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2015/08/who-first-coined-the-term-greenhouse-effect/ Who first coined the term “Greenhouse Effect”?]," ''Serendipity,'' August 2015</ref> ===The skeptics strike back===Swedish physicist Knut Ångström debunked Arrhenius's theory in 1901.<ref>"[https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/climate-scientists-celebrating-115-years-of-debunked-science/ Climate Scientists Celebrating 115 Years Of Debunked Junk Science]"</ref> Arrhenius ignored water vapour in his calculations, leading him overestimate the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> by 96 percent, according to Ångström. Ångström took a tube of carbon dioxide, shined black body radiation on it, and varied the pressure on the gas. Increasing the pressure led the only a slight increase in absorption. He concluded that radiation absorption by CO<sub>2</sub> is already nearly saturated, so the emission of additional gas would have little effect. Ångström thus became "the first denier." Despite this debunking, Arrhenius won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1903 for unrelated research. The Ångströms, meanwhile, are remembered for a miniscule unit of length named after Anders Ångström, Knut's dad. In 1901, Nils Ekholm, an associate of Arrhenius, published an answer to Ångström's point about saturation. Ångström's tube was saturated because it was at sea level. High enough up in the atmosphere, there must be an unsaturated layer of carbon dioxide capable of absorbing radiation. The greater the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the lower this layer would be. A lower layer would retransmit more radiation to the surface and therefore warm the Earth. In a highly emotional reply of his own, Arrhenius insisted that CO<sub>2</sub> rose higher in the atmosphere than water vapor could, so water vapor was not relevant. However, the water vapor argument was generally understood to be the theory's weakest link.<ref>The American Meteorological Society's ''1951 Compendium of Meteorology'' says that the idea that adding CO<sub>2</sub> would change the climate "was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO<sub>2</sub> is [already] absorbed by water vapor.</ref> Finally performing the experiment Fourier recommended, Robert Wood showed in 1909 that energy is transferred from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere primarily through "convection currents." Infrared re-radiation and the greenhouse effect play "a very small part," both in the atmosphere and in literal greenhouses.<ref>Wood, Robert, "[http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Note_on_the_Theory_of_the_Greenhouse.pdf Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse]", ''Philosphical Magazine'', January—June 1909.<br/>"[http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.jp/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die]," June 28, 2010.<br/>Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, "[https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics]"</ref> A greenhouse is warmer because the roof limits convection and the walls restrict wind. "The acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air," as Fourier himself explained.<ref name="Fourier" /> Until the 1960s, very few additional papers on AGW would be published. Research went forward as the lonely project of English scientist Guy Callendar. Callendar collected historical temperature readings and CO<sub>2</sub> measurements and published the results in 1938. Few scientists were convinced that a link existed. ===Theory rescued by Venus===In climate science, bad ideas don't die when they are disproven. They hibernate and come back when they are topical again. Interest in AGW was rekindled by telescope observations of Venus in the early 1960s. They showed that the planet was extremely hot and that it had a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Was this "runaway greenhouse" Earth's future? Carbon dioxide as a doomsday chemical was a radically new spin. Both Arrhenius and Callendar had assumed that warming would be beneficial. With Rachel Carson's ''Silent Spring'' (1962), Paul R. Ehrlich's ''The Population Bomb'' (1968), and the Club of Rome's ''The Limits to Growth'' (1972), this was an era when the reading public had an enormous appetite for spurious theories concerning human-initiated global catastrophe. Despite the renewed interest, the scientific merits of the AGW theory remained as they were. In 1971, Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko gave a speech to a large international conference in Leningrad in which he presented an alarmist AGW scenario. Reaction was strongly negative. It was clear that AGW was very much a minority opinion among scientists at this time. A quick look at Venus reveals that the atmosphere is entirely opaque due to sulfur dioxide clouds. No sunlight reaches the surface, which means that the planet has no greenhouse effect whatsoever. Whatever the chemistry of the Venusian atmosphere, water vapor remains the primary greenhouse gas in the terrestrial atmosphere. ==The temperature record==Global temperatures are tracked by three methods: weather stations, satellites, and weather balloons. All three methods confirm a modest amount of warming in recent decades. A reanalysis of weather station data for 1943 to 2012 by Dr. Roy Spencer shows that after a cooler period in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. temperatures returned to their earlier level.<ref>Spencer corrects for the fact that at most stations measurement time of day has changed over the years. This is something the NASA and NOAA temperature histories fail to do. The 1930s were warmer than the 1940s. So Spencer's analysis implies that the warmest year on record was 1934, not 2016 as the climate establishment maintains. (Spencer, Roy, "[http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/a-new-analysis-of-u-s-temperature-trends-since-1943/ A New Analysis of U.S. Temperature Trends Since 1943]," August 6th, 2012.)</ref> Satellite data shows a warming trend of 0.11 K/decade for 1978 to 2015.<ref>Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell, "[http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released]", 28 April, 2015.</ref> Weather balloon data shows a warming trend of 0.18 K/decade for 1970 to 2015.<ref>The figure given is for RATPAC-A, surface to 700 mb. See "[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/14/gavins-admission-about-the-satellite-record-versus-the-surface-temperature-record/ Gavin’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record]," ''Watt's Up With That''. You can find a collection of global climate charts [https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/ here].</ref> These trends can be explained by the interaction of several natural cycles, including the 11-year-sunspot cycle, the Pacific decadal oscillation,<ref>Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming", ''Geophysical Research Letters''.</ref> and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).<ref>*72 percent of global temperature variation since 1958 reflects the influence of a Pacific Ocean weather cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009-07-23). "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature". ''Journal of Geophysical Research''<br/>*Spencer, R.W. & Braswell, W.D., "[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model]", Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci (2014) 50: 229. doi:10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z</ref> ==Summary of arguments against anthropogenic global warming==Natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref <ref name="Time">"Science: Another Ice Age?" (June 24, 1974). ''Time'' magazine. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref name="dissidents">"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." Cockburn, Alexander (June 9–11, 2007). [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html "Dissidents against dogma"]. Counterpunch. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria. Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and Flutterdragon. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.
In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>"Issues" (September 1, 2007). www.JohnMcCain.com [2008 senate campaign website] quoted in [http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm "John McCain on environment"] OnTheIssues.org. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing ''as scientists'', but remarked upon their omissions as data-presenters. Accordingly, the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Whiteman, Hilary (July 7, 2010). [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin "'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty"]. CNN World. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>
Former vice president [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying. [See [[#Al_Gore.27s_Claims|Al Gore's claims]] below.]
==Summary of arguments against anthropogenic global warming==The following facts can help dissuade even the most illogical of liberals from believing in the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming.
=== Temperature flat ===
The overall temperature has been flat for about 16 years.<ref name="Rose">Rose, David (October 13, 2012). [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...and here is the chart to prove it"]. MailOnline. Retrieved on September 26, 2014.</ref>
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey Stick Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''
<small>
*Shabecoff, Philip, [http://climateauditwww.files.wordpressnytimes.com/20051989/0901/mcintyre26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.mckitrickhtml U.2003S.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature SeriesSince 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick", ''Energy & EnviornmentNew York Times'' volume 14, 2003.January 26, 1989
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, "[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series], ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69–100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
</small>
*Dalmia, Shikha (December 2, 2009). [http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html "Cringing over Climategate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Taylor, James (November 23, 2011). [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ "Climategate 2.0: New e-mails rock the global warming debate"]. Forbes website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Bailey, Ronald (December 26, 2012). [http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-s "34 years of satellite temperature data show global warming is on a plateau"]. Hit & Run Blog/Reason.com. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Cole, Steve and McCarthy, Leslie (January 12, 2011). [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html "NASA research finds 2010 tied for warmest year on record"]. NASA website. Retrieved on September 25, 2014.
*Tisdale, Bob (August 10, 2012). [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/not-hot-ocean-sst-around-the-usa-not-anywhere-near-record-levels/ "Not so hot—ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]. Watts Up with That? Retrieved on September 25, 2014.</ref>
</small>
==Effects of global warming==