On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:21:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:50:49 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:03:23 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:19:57 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:08:31 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:


On the basis that a million lemmings can't be wrong? Actually, it used
to be 97%, not 99%, and it's now down to 43%. So *you're* in a
minority. http://tinyurl.com/nvg8xkn.

As a retired scientist I like to make my own judgement. The acid test
of any theory is that the results it predicts should reasonably follow
reality. The theory that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the
recent rise in global temperature fails that test, in that CO2 has
continued to rise, but temperatures haven't changed significantly
within their normal variation since about 2000.

As a retired scientist I would have thought you would put more faith
in figures from a peer reviewed scientific publication from a leading
scientific body(97%) rather than than a politically motivated
blog(43%).

The '43%' figure originally came from here. http://tinyurl.com/pkuwob3
Hardly a 'politically motivated blog'!

No it did not! The figure of 43% does not appear anywhere in that
document or in the peer reviewed paper by the same authors. The lead
author has pointed out that it is a misrepresentation of their work.

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress...how/#more-2842

There are plenty of well-qualified climatologists who do not believe
that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming.

So why don't they publish anything in peer reviewed scientific
publication?

I'm sure they have. Plenty of references he-
http://tinyurl.com/nwonskj

A tiny number, 0.7% of published papers on climate science papers
rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global
warming.