Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's
conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming.
Not exact matches
You write: «And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be drawing
conclusions: the
anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is based on only
about 23 years — 1975 - 1998.
And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be drawing
conclusions: the
anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is based on only
about 23 years — 1975 - 1998.
That 40 % number is a falsehood - there is
about a 98 % consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that
anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the
conclusion of man caused
global warming.
All these years Steve has maintained a very clear (and always polite) stance: he proposed himself to audit some data, models, procedures and
conclusions, while not defending or declaring any particular position
about the claims made by Climate Science regarding
anthropogenic climate change,
global warming and other similar issues.
But didn't that
conclusion also imply that the consensus is not
about whether
anthropogenic global warming presents a putative harm to humanity?
You write: «And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be drawing
conclusions: the
anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is based on only
about 23 years -1975-1998.