“Shows that even if you make the massive assumption that all the papers on this list are valid, they still make up a paltry amount of the literature on AGW.”

“Lomborg’s analysis suffers from several problems, including selective use of data, oversimplification of issues, posing the wrong questions, and lack of objectivity in his quest for optimistic trends.”

“”

“Shows the main authors from this list have a conflict of interest due to links with ExxonMobil.”

“The Heartland Institute published the news in a strongly misleading way on its website”

“Shows authors responding to the paper saying their papers were categorised incorrectly”

“A complete rebuttal of the Carbon Brief's lies, misinformation and strawman arguments”

“Shows that many of the authors of papers on the list do not support claims that their papers are skeptical of AGW.”

“Dr. Tol uses statistics to show why Cook et al. is not a representative sample”

“Shows in detail how blog is in error”

“Demonstrates biases and inaccuracies of Beck's CO2 measurements.”

“Partial English version of Lomborg's 185-page rebuttal to Kare Fog”

“Lomborg’s analysis suffers from several problems, including selective use of data, oversimplification of issues, posing the wrong questions, and lack of objectivity in his quest for optimistic trends.”

“Corrects misinformation by the Carbon Brief about the Scholarly Peer-Reviewed journal Energy & Environment”

“”

“Complete rebuttal to his lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. Including his failure to know that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature.”

“Exposes numerous fallacies, shoddy and often contradictory selection criteria of poptech's list.”

“Chart is only for the tropics”

“Alec Rawls responds to Steven Sherwood: “The professor is inverting the scientific method””

“Climate change alarmism is a cult”

“Climate Change alarmism is a cult”

“Shows that the Popular Technology blog resorts to cherry picking, fake experts and misrepresentations in an abysmal attempt to cast doubt on the established consensus.”

“Seriously, Heartland? “Some people”? I think you misspelled “everybody”, including the very China Academy of Sciences you were touting, because that’s precisely what you were saying.”

“Complete rebuttal of Skeptical Science's Google Scholar Illiteracy not using quotes when searching for phrases, not being able to count past 1000 and not removing erroneous results.”

“”

“Shows that the journal E&E, which is most used on this list, is of relative unimportance within climate science.”

“Complete rebuttal of an alleged peer-reviewed debunking point by point”

“Complete rebuttal of the Carbon Brief's lies, misinformation and strawman arguments”

“Dr. Tol uses statistics to show why Cook et al. is not a representative sample”

“shows that long warming continues”

“A more direct rebuttal, pointing out the dishonesty and bias inherent in the source page.”