The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has promoted a paper on global warming entitled "Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide", which has had a number of incarnations since 1999.
- Soon, W., Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson (1999), Climate Research, 13: 149–164
- 2007 version by Robinson, A., N. Robinson and W. Soon (hereafter RRS)
- Michael MacCracken (pdf) (The definitive rebuttal)
- Mike Powell
- Steve Dutch: A Global Warming Counterfeit
- Everyone's a scientist: Could Nevada have 346 climate experts? Reno's newsreview.com Jan 13, 2011
Information gathered below is culled from RC. Specific credit to: Keith Pickering, Timothy, mbeb, Aaron Lewis, Joel Shore, CobblyWorlds, Lawrence Brown, John Nielsen-Gammon, Henk Lankamp
- The dating of the Sargasso Sea record is 50 years out, because they misunderstand the use of 'BP' (Before Present) dates in paleo-records, which refers to before 1950 AD, not the present day.
- The 2006 plotted value is incorrect. Current SST in the Sargasso Sea region is about half a degree above 23 deg C line and while this was included in the original figure, it has been deleted here. For reference, the HADISST data has 24.2 C for this location.
- The caption states that “the principal source of melt energy is solar radiation”, which incorrectly implies that the Sun is to blame for glacier shortening.
- The figure is taken from Oerlemans (2005) (uncited)
- The line corresponds to the result “Excluding Alps” and not the “Global” line, as it should have been.
- RRS state “The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years”. This is actually derived purely from Figure 1, and show refers the Sargasso Sea temperatures, not any kind of hemispheric or global compilation.
- The notion of 'rebound' of climate from the Little Ice Age has no support in the climate literature.
- Humans exhaling CO2 do not contribute to accumulating GHGs.
- Most of the graphs show amount of fuel burnt, rather than CO2 concentrations, or better still radiative forcing. No direct correlation is expected from hydrocarbon use to climate.
- Neptune is not significantly showing a response to solar forcing “The nature of Neptune’s increasing brightness: evidence for a seasonal response” Sromovsky et al (2003), Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature? (Stoat) , 
- "There is [no correlation] between hydrocarbon use and temperature". This is not true. Even between use and temperature there is a correlation, and between radiative forcing and temperature (the more appropriate comparison) the correlation is stronger.
- Comparison of human-related CO2 fluxes to natural fluxes is flawed. 2.7 As natural emissions of carbon dioxide are very much greater than those from human activities, surely the effect of man is insignificant?
- The assertion that current Earth temperatures are 1C lower now than 1000 years ago requires rejecting a recent NAS panel report in favor of an article by one of the authors and another unpublished manuscript.
- The first paragraph on page 8 argues that since past temperature variations were as large as they were and not considerably larger, CO2 increases cannot produce a water vapor feedback. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how feedback works in climate (see here for more explanation).
- The comparison of solar activity change over the past century (0.19%) and United States temperature change (in K) (0.21%) assumes that readers are sufficiently ignorant of basic blackbody radiation theory to think that the similarity of the numbers supports their thesis, rather than being convincing evidence against their thesis.
- Only the Sargasso Sea record the only one used in the paper, rather than any of the compilations
- Reference #19 is private communication from one of the authors