Wrong, I do not have to prove any such thing as I am not making any such claims.
How databases work is not a "semantics game", what sort of computer illiterate claim is this? My very first DB education I gave them is that by not properly using quotes to search for the "phrase", the results dropped by over 300,000. Do you not understand this? This is an embarrassment of EPIC proportions. That means they were including results that have those words in irrelevant context such as,
Prove they did not search correctly? The Denominator page I quoted says they used quotes? Here, I'll make it bold for you.
Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles.
The "denominator" post is like one big joke that computer illiterates like yourself quote in epic failure. Why are you trying to embarrass yourself like this?
Eerrr, see above?
I do not such thing, why are you misrepresenting my list? All of the papers support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.
Looking at your list I'm impressed by how old the papers are. Many of these 'debates' were settled over a decade and a half ago. You're seriously asking me to dig through that pile of tired old denialist myths? Like this 2000 paper by Pielke that merely argues because the population has grown, there are more people and properties to be damaged by weather events SO THEREFORE (Denialist logic jump follows) we should invest more in adaptation rather than prevention? Umm, this was published before Sandy, before 2010 and 2005 (hottest years on record beating even the super El Nino of 1998), before the Australian drought had played out... and then the super-La Nina floods had destroyed so many lives (because the atmosphere is 5% wetter today than 40 years ago, so both droughts and floods can be so much worse), before record breaking heatwaves in the USA and those Russian fires.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
But hey, you
keep that tired old Meteorological (not Climate journal!) article on your website. It makes your numbers
that much higher! 
The list has gone over phenomenally well and has gained massive credibility as it is frequently cited and recommended by credentialed scientists,
Oh please, stop it, it hurts. So you've got a big online bromance going with other denialists who are frequently tired, bitter old men who can't get their denialist arguments recognised by real practising climatologists! Surprise me!
This list is a 'Who's who' of people who have published marginal pieces that, just like Creation Scientists, then go on to inflate the 'achievements' of these pieces beyond all proportion or demonstration of perceived 'successes' against climate science. Really... you need to share the top 2 papers that convince you the MAJORITY of scientific organisations are wrong!
Oh yeah... as we mentioned the American Meteorological Society from your out of date 2000 paper above, I thought I'd better copy and paste their opinion on climate change.
American Meteorological Society
The
American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earths lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking.
The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
[64]
So, to be honest, could you please just subtract all the papers from the AMS from your list, as those papers were obviously niggling over smaller details without at all challenging the larger picture. Thanking you in advance....
I will have the last laugh when the temperatures continue to drop globally.
