That is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read attempting to debunk AGW, and it fails miserably. That is why Phd's in physics are not climatologists, and without specific training in the science, should just keep their mouths shut.
Of course you know the pro AGW crowd just loves ALL their ''Phd's in physics'' supporters/researchers/authors.
Should they keep their mouths shut, too?
It depends what they know about climate science, which is a specialty. From what I read, a substantial majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. Also from what I read, most of the "scientists" who oppose AGW are NOT climatologists, i.e. they lack specific training in the field, such as the Phd. whose article I think is very poor and does nothing to cast doubt on AGW, although 2 posters here seem to think it has some validity, which I do not believe, after reading the article and thinking about it for a while.
When people get cancer, every general practitioner that I know recommends that you go to an oncologist, a specialist in treating the disease of cancer. That advice is generally heeded by most reasonable people who would like to possibly cure their cancer, or at least extend their life. When the chips are down, you go to a specialist.
Here I would tend to believe those dedicated to the study of climate before a general scientist, just as I would trust my life to an oncologist (a specialist) if I had cancer.
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.
Now, this article from an apparent AGW dissenter at the very least at a substantial or compelling majority of climate scientists do support AGW.
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.
In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.
So, whether you think the number of "scientists" or "climate scientists" who support AGW, from a pro AGW view or from an anti AGW view, the numbers who support AGW range in my study of both pro and anti, from 84% up to 100%.
Now apparently you take exception to my dismissal of Dr. Berry's article published up above. If he is right, and he is a Phd. and I am not, it should be easy for you to support his article. So, why do you believe the article? What is it in the article that makes the convincing case that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong, and Dr. Berry is right? Has he performed any experiments to support his assertions, has he published his study and has it been peer reviewed?
Edited by Rich C, 30 April 2019 - 04:38 PM.