Well, since I am a scientist at heartIOW you aren't a real scientist, you just think you are.
This statement cannot have been made by a scientist or even a “scientist at heart”.
In Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time he says,” Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.” The theory that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are having a profound effect on atmospheric temperatures have undeniably been disproved by the data. The Climategate scandal showed us all that the key players from universities around the world all understand this.
Yet this misleading distortion of observational data goes on and on. This is because this controversy is not being perpetuated by science and scientists but by politicians and special interests.
So you believe that 99% of scientists believe in man made global warming? Then you are an easily manipulated fool. The true percentage of scientists that believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming is just a tiny percentage. Science is about curiosity, theory and observation. It has never had anything to do with consensus... Never.
Mich I do have a reading assignment for you. Every major pollster ever asked about the 97% “consensus” study has concluded that it was not only flawed, but entirely disingenuous. Yet you have inflated the number even further to 99%. Incredible!!! Please take a look at the following link. It starts,
“The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
Also on your reading list should be something about Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
Since I am a redneck at heart, I guess being “scientific”, you must recognize that never has 99% of science gone along with the fake science of faking meteorological data to show a PC outcome. Only those that liked the Grant graveytrain did so.
Being a redneck tells me that its pretty damn egotistical to think that a hundred years data is able to give any viable understanding of the earth’s climatology that has been working for a very long time without man’s assistance.