Graham Turk objects to mention of the views of Dr. William Happer in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. Turk argues that “there is no debate” and that “97 percent of climate scientists are in consensus” that global warming is human-caused.
The Oct. 31 issue of the journal Nature included a letter that purported to show more dramatically accelerated ocean warming than previous data and models had indicated. (Princeton, as well as Scripps and UCSD, was involved.) This item received a great deal of publicity. Alas, a “math error” was quickly discovered and admitted, and the study’s conclusions were walked back.
So great was the lust of this fraternity to blast another headline that scientific due diligence had not been taken. Once again it has been demonstrated that 97 percent of climate scientists are in consensus that there should be more attention, and more funding, paid to climate scientists.
Editor’s note: Additional letters on this topic and supporting William Happer can be found at PAW Online from Peter Seldin ’76, Richard S. Dillon ’55, Charles M. Hohenberg ’62, William Hayden Smith *66, and William T. Lynch *71.
Graham Turk objects to mention of the views of Dr. William Happer in a discussion of anthropogenic climate change. Turk argues that “there is no debate” and that “97 percent of climate scientists are in consensus” that global warming is human-caused.
The Oct. 31 issue of the journal Nature included a letter that purported to show more dramatically accelerated ocean warming than previous data and models had indicated. (Princeton, as well as Scripps and UCSD, was involved.) This item received a great deal of publicity. Alas, a “math error” was quickly discovered and admitted, and the study’s conclusions were walked back.
So great was the lust of this fraternity to blast another headline that scientific due diligence had not been taken. Once again it has been demonstrated that 97 percent of climate scientists are in consensus that there should be more attention, and more funding, paid to climate scientists.
Editor’s note: Additional letters on this topic and supporting William Happer can be found at PAW Online from Peter Seldin ’76, Richard S. Dillon ’55, Charles M. Hohenberg ’62, William Hayden Smith *66, and William T. Lynch *71.