So, more evidence is warranted. Here is more support for man-made Global Warming, referred to ACC in the article below. Note that the publication is from the PNAS:
About PNAS
PNAS is one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals, publishing more than 3,200 research papers annually.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.
Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider
PNAS July 6, 2010 107 (27) 12107-12109;
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an
extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.short