Anyone calling themselves a scientist who believes in catastrophic global warming, is a scientist. Anyone who doesn’t believe in catastrophic global warming is not a scientist. Therefore, all scientists believe in catastrophic global warming.
Last spring, the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences reviewed the available facts and declared that “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring
And I thought there were still dinosaurs walking around my neighborhood. NAS is freaking brilliant.
All swans are white.
On the other hand I’m a scientist, I do not accept the evidence for CAGW, and I’m an Aussie. And here all swans are black.
Then again our local FASTS is just as silly as NAS, so one thing remains common: if you get enough national-society-joining-scientists together in one place they go inane (sic).
So far they are right…
…you can’t tie a 6 year old record and have warming
lol, I remember when NAS made the statement. When did they become “nonpartisan”?
I agree, 100%, in fact 110% including the bonus question, that the statement, “A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring”. I would be thunderstruck to find a scientist with some knowledge of the issue to disagree with that statement.
BUT, the statement says nothing about whether Anthropogenic Induced Climate Change is occurring and furthermore, what factors could be causing such a change.
It is a trick question with a trick answer.
Doesn’t the scientific method promote an open mind and objectively examining all evidence, both supporting and refuting your hypothesis? Science doesn’t mean having a closed mind, automatically rejecting non-supporting data and spewing dogma. That is what is supposed to seperate science from religion and superstition.
Yes it does. So when I ask whether anyone has falsified Spencer & Braswell 2010 or Lindzen & Choi 2009, and hear silence, I draw the scientific conclusion.
Especially since Spencer & Braswell falsified all 18 IPCC GCM’s.