And, that is the proof of the massive fraud perpetuated by
a small number of climate scientists to keep the gravy train of Government climate research Grants coming (over $ 30 billion to date and no scientific proof that CO2 is harmful.
Not exact matches
««Doubter» and the clunkier «those who reject mainstream
climate science» strike me as fair terms to describe both members
of the public and the very
small number of scientists who are not convinced.»
Most
scientists expect the increase in the
number of strong hurricanes as the
climate warms to be at the expense
of smaller ones, meaning fewer overall.
Another point I remember from the Wegman report was that the peer review
of climate science papers was sort
of a closed circle due to the relatively
small number of qualified
climate scientists.
# 57, RE
small numbers, I'm no
climate scientist, but I do know statisticians have methods, such as Chi - square and log - linear analysis (based on odds ratios), that are quite successful on data sets with
small numbers of observations.
The Myths are quite entertaining, because the info there does neatly deflate all the rubbish / nonsense talked by the
small number of shills & mavericks who oppose the mainstream science (i.e. the mainstream science which results in virtually all the
climate scientists being in accord with the consensus
of 97 %... or nowadays more likely 99 %)
Mr Steffen, that great
climate scientist advising the Government on
climate said, «If you look at the temperature change
of the oceans, it's a
small number but when you convert it to Joules you realize what huge
numbers we are dealing with»
A very, very
small number of vocal
climate scientists and a somewhat larger group
of what I would call advocates and bureaucrats really determine what you hear in the media about AGW science.