a. watts was not the scientist I was referencing...
b. oh therefore it will be easy for you to link to the "extensive scientific evidence"....
please note...
1. you would have to establish there was some warming outside natural varibility.
2. there was some sort or warming different from previous periods of warming... which were not smoothed away by data manipulation.
3. that man made co2 caused it...
4. finally that this peer review paper was incorrect...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
b. oh therefore it will be easy for you to link to the "extensive scientific evidence"....
please note...
1. you would have to establish there was some warming outside natural varibility.
2. there was some sort or warming different from previous periods of warming... which were not smoothed away by data manipulation.
3. that man made co2 caused it...
4. finally that this peer review paper was incorrect...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
