Now oddly when looking for data to either support or refute this the first I came across was a major collection of peer reviewed literature which rejected global warming, compiled by all people Skeptical Science. Having written a list of over a hundred scientists myself I knew rejected this theory, such as Nir Shaviv and Harold Lewis, who left the American Physical Society as a result as he knew their stance was false based on, well, science. Therefore, for possibly the first time in my travels, did I come across a source who made a claim and proceeded to debunk it on their own website. Now I don't think I need to comment further besides to say in law such facts speak for themselves. Here is the page I first searched for on Willie Soon , the outstanding expert who along with Sallie Baliunas turn out paper after paper dismissing the claims of the IPCC one at a time. Of course he was eventually smeared and had his career wrecked by the 'management' who do not tolerate any diversion from the path. But rather than faff around for hours as I normally have to to raise enough material to create a picture large enough to consider, these clowns had done the whole lot for me. They even made a chart counting every single one, admittedly they claim many have none at all, but besides listing at least as many scientists who are clearly not part of any consensus, wrecking their parallel claim, they admit there is a pretty heavy opposition, and only left me the task to see if their paltry numbers of papers were genuine. Peer reviewed sceptics
Then to further compound their predicament, a similar site Denier List actually contradicts its own claims by making as long a list as they can showing the total lack of consensus over the climate after all. The truth, such as that behind 97% claims normally never seen outside a banana republic's election results, will not only come out far faster than the complex bilge around climate sensitivity and projections which they know perfectly well takes decades to disprove while they collect more and more money from us in the meantime, putting your head on the line to make specific claims based on existing verifiable facts is a stretch too far.
I suppose now I'll have to check some of Skeptical Science's claims of zero peer reviewed papers from specific individuals, although by publishing the list at all they have (along with Denier List) entirely blown apart the 97% list, as when you include the 32,000 or so scientists who signed the petition dismissing such claims would mean over a million scientists agree, probably more than actually exist at any one moment in time. Petition project They have therefore already destroyed their consensus claim themselves by listing the many equally qualified scientists who definitely do not agree with the rest, and there are (one similar source claims only two) a few (OK, 24 in their case) peer reviewed sceptical papers. I assume any individuals quoted would already have sued them had they been wrong on their figures, but you never know, sometimes I've seen such possible slanders lie untouched for years, sometimes the victim not even being aware of them. But that will be a time consuming project so will leave it here that the total of peer reviewed papers they have already raised makes their first claim entire rot and combined with their debunked 97% proves beyond any doubt they are a totally unreliable source of any information whatsoever.
However, just by using their own list the total peer reviewed papers exceeds their claim of 24 by 75 with a total of 99, although maybe some were outside that period, or not totally dismissive, or something. Oddly one of the greatest collections of temperature data ever assessed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Michael Beenstock and Nir Shaviv, which took the Mann and BEST datasets among others and found no evidence of man made warming was indeed peer reviewed, so they fall at the first hurdle I set up, and suspect more if not many more of their zero claims will also turn up to be false. Just a hunch.
Clue: I checked Fred Singer's publications, luckily Wikipedia has provided selections of each by name so have effectively provided a universal source. Score: Skeptical Science- 0 Wikipedia (see below, just a selection remember):
- Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Reidel, 1970)
- Manned Laboratories in Space (Reidel, 1970)
- Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971)
- The Changing Global Environment (Reidel, 1975)
- Arid Zone Development (Ballinger, 1977)
- Economic Effects of Demographic Changes (Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 1977)
- Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking (Mitre Corp, 1979)
- Energy (W.H. Freeman, 1979)
- The Price of World Oil (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 8, 1983)
- Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984)
- Oil Policy in a Changing Market (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 12, 1987)
- The Ocean in Human Affairs (Paragon House, 1989)
- The Universe and Its Origin: From Ancient Myths to Present Reality and Future Fantasy (Paragon House, 1990)
- Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (Paragon House, 1989)
- The Greenhouse Debate Continued (ICS Press, 1992)
- The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty (SEPP, 1997)
- Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997)
- with Dennis Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)
- with Craig Idso. Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (2009).
I may be contacting double Doctor Singer for his opinions next, and now would suggest each similar Wiki page will turn up similar results for all the other zero scorers. I admit I am not physically able to check each of these for peer review, but when weeding out the papers from the books and knowing the process would suggest most if not all the papers would be.