From your link : Botkin said - " ... For example the temperature change is not tracking carbon dioxide very well. Then there is the information from the long term antarctic ice core and some from recent paper in the arctic, that suggest that carbon dioxide does not lead temperature change, it may actually lag it significantly or may not lead it at all, and if that is the case that is still an open but important scientific evidence. ... "
That's pretty much what skeptics have been telling these zealots all along. I guess he's the next one they will throw under their diminishing passenger bus. No standees!!! :-) Who is next I wonder? ... and how many does this make? I don't see anyone jumping on the bus either.
Pretty funny Alph! Too bad that he was already counted in the consensus of 97%. The percentage keeps dropping as it should. It was the 32% trying to claim that all of these scientists were on their side. LOL!
97% of climate scientists believe that Man is the cause of global warming as long as taxpayers continue to support them with $$Billions each year for frivolous "research".
If the money disappears, then only 3% believe that Man is the cause.
This "question" amounts to little more than a link to
A notorious anti-science blogger:
http://desmogblog.com/directory/vocabula...
Citing a long term self-promoting ex-professor non-climate scientist denier of climate science:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Talking to a hearing in a house of Congress run by prostitutes to fossil fuel campaign funding:
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/H...
Needless to say this anti-science "question" has nothing really to do with science or with genuine "skeptics."
Kano, if you answer your own question, is it actually a "question"? I think this one has to count as a rhetorical rather than a "real" one, despite your earlier intention:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Who cares? He is not even an atmospheric scientist, so he's no particular expert on the subject.
You will always find a handful of people with opinions that are contrary to the majority.
Funny how when climate scientists retire they speak their real feelings about AGW theory. When the pressure to tow the line is gone
When scientists retire, they no longer have to 'toe the line' and risk their careers, after retirement they are free to say what they believe. that is why I admire Judith Curry in having the courage to speak out while her career is still ongoing.
SO, when did he change his mind?
It always worries me when some retired professor changes his mind and says that global warming is not a problem.
There are an awful lot of folks that retire, and find they don't have enough money to support the lifestyle that they'd like to experience.
Any research grants on true global warming research require that some results be produced.
On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry hands out considerable money just to sew doubt.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
https://www.google.com/#q=fossil+fuel+mo...
How much "dark money" is used to support the idea that global warming is real?
But again, When did he change his mind?
emeritus delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://brleader.com/?p=12946
www.safgate.com /politics/article
see here http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells-congress-
