Answer: They cannot explain it because if they admitted these papers existed that means they would have to admit that there is extensive peer-reviewed dissent from alarmist claims.
@pegminer, the list is exactly what it claims to be, "700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm" and conference papers can be peer-reviewed. Opinion based papers can also be peer-reviewed.
@Dana1981, all of the papers support skepticism of of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of, thus they all support skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm. None of the papers have been misrepresented. The popularity of a journal is irrelevant but the list of journals is provided which includes many popular journals. The only listings that were not published are the submitted papers which are not counted towards the total and are provided in some instances in defense of a criticism of a certain paper.
EBSCO lists Environmental Geosciences as a peer-reviewed academic journal,
The paper in question was published in 2000 and while some of the data it mentions has since changed much of the criticism remains valid and supported.
@linlyons, ALL the papers are from peer-reviewed publications. There is no such thing as one that is "honest" or not. The one that says "for peer-review only" is an ADDENDUM to a paper, these are NOT counted, as this is explicitly stated in the second sentence on the page,
"Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."
There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about the list.
FYI, there are extensive notes following the list. There are well over 700 papers (closer to 750) on the list. Corrections have and will be made to the list when they are legitimate, none of which discredits the existence of the hundreds of skeptical papers on the list.
@Weise Ente, the list makes no mention of being only research articles (yes there are many on the list) but of "peer-reviewed papers", all of the counted ones are. There are many more authors then just six and over 200 individual journals. None of the journals are trash, least of all E&E. The list is meant to be all inclusive and is not biased to the popularity of a journal. What is desperate is trying to deny the overwhelming evidence of the existence of these papers.