FromNASA...
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1
Where did the data come from? its the same ole same ole rolled out... Many different journals for and against a THEORY.
show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*
Them what write about it agree (shock horror)why not 100% of the climate change scientist who actively write their journals making claims.: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
extremely likely is NOT a scientific certainty= not evidenced- it is a guess! whood da thunk it!
" In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".they (leading scientific organizations worldwide) forget to mention the money. climate change money, to produce papers, based on data which it dodgy. To offer up a theory!AND they hide their means of gathering claimed authentic data.
Remember the emails? the ones the sceptics took sentences out of context. hahahaahaaha!
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.""Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations.Can anyone find fault with that statement?
Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures."
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”[/i]
play it down...it is there for all to read.
AND...
http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR3KLUG7yWknMsg8pKs5eaMW2bl2NRq5opBcKFDifjEGVTORy1umB_OWuhkThere are many different scientist @ NASA. It isn't difficult to find conflicting 'theories'
" Nevertheless, it is clear that solar variability seems much more likely to have driven the large regional climate changes seen in historical data. This provides both a useful test of the ability of climate models to simulate patterns of regional changes and important evidence for the importance of solar variability in climate change."
Then...
""Pink elephant in the room" time: There is no impending “ice age” or "mini ice age" to be caused by an expected reduction in the Sun’s energy output in the next several decades.
Through its lifetime, the Sun naturally goes through changes in energy output. Some of these occur over a regular 11-year period of peak (many sunspots) and low activity (fewer sunspots), which are quite predictable. "
So yes, No, we don't know? it depends on where the money comes from I guess. lol
I loved the moon landing TV show.
