....but ignorant people unable to think for themselves (a lot of these people are in academia) will still insist it's settled science no matter how many scientist and climatologists say, "no it's not."
From a U of Illinois survey of scientists:
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
There are large uncertainties, clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays, etc, and the MSM is lax in reporting many of the inconvenient challenges to the models. The Economist which for years has been very alarmist in its climate coverage, has just posted a new article questioning the veracity of global warming which included an illustration of how IPCC climate models are sitting at the threshold of exceeding two standard deviations of CO2 induced temperature estimates, which if crossed would render the models null and void as a predictive methodology.
Just out are thoughts on climate by Princeton's Freeman Dyson who actually worked on climate change in the 1970s in a new article titled 'Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor' by Paul Mulshine of The Star Ledger. Dyson rejected climate models as unreliable long long ago and today with those models in trouble he states, "Their (climatologists) computer models are full of fudge factors."
TSI peaked and is now falling with Solar physicists warning of an extended period of reduced Solar activity similar to the Dalton Minimum. NASA completely botched the Solar cycle 25 prediction which has only reached half the increased predicted by NASA and this lends more credence to the Dalton Minimum scenario which is predicted to start in 2014. If this minimum occurs and temperatures drop, that will be the proof that I need that CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures. If it doesn't cool down or the temperature increases with decreasing TSI then I take CO2 more seriously.
Typical nutjob misdirection, the overwhelming majority of scientist and climatologists do not say that.
Just because you type some unsupported nonsense on a message board does not mean it has the slightest credibility. You would know that if you had an IQ that was higher than the average rock.
It was a hoax from day one for commonsense conservatives. When over 600 scientists tell you it was a hoax inspired by socialist governments wanting to bilk corporations of their profits the red flag went up for all but the smallest of liberal minds.