It's not actually scientific for an economist to state an opinion about a hunch. He did prove the paper invalid even though he supports it's conclusion. How does that in anyway confirm there's a consensus or that a consensus is at all scientific.
Here's the rest of that quote: The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed). . On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > > http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html > > "*âThere is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate > change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused > by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed > correct.â* > > When you are trying to confuse the truth, and in some instances outright > lie, you gotta be careful that you don't end up disproving your own > argument lol lol.. > > > ᧠> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:370722 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
