Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

[Sunsettommy]

We start by pointing out to the idiots of the world that they are dupes

You mean the scientists, right?

You mean THESE scientists?

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

or

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

or

75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

or

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

and many more I can bring up to show that THOUSANDS of scientists do not agree that CO2 is the driver of weather/climate phenomenon.

Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended.

Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Interestingly, they side with the consensus when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies about how the Towers fell. Overall, per our policy, any source that rejects the known consensus of science is placed in the pseudoscience category.

NoTricksZone is another conspiracy bullshit website.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.

You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs.

Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science journals:

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

"Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK

 

[Confounding]

You mean the scientists, right?

You mean THESE scientists?

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

or

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

or

75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

or

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

and many more I can bring up to show that THOUSANDS of scientists do not agree that CO2 is the driver of weather/climate phenomenon.

Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended.

Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Interestingly, they side with the consensus when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies about how the Towers fell. Overall, per our policy, any source that rejects the known consensus of science is placed in the pseudoscience category.

NoTricksZone is another conspiracy bullshit website.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.

You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs.

Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science journals:

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

"Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK

Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.

 

[Confounding]

Here are some links from websites that are actually reputable.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.

The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli

Even those rare skeptic scientists agree that at least some of the warming is caused by humans.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here are some links from a website that is actually reputable.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

LOL...

Tell me consensus man, in your own words, what is the core premise of AGW?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You mean THESE scientists?

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

or

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

or

75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

or

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

and many more I can bring up to show that THOUSANDS of scientists do not agree that CO2 is the driver of weather/climate phenomenon.

Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended.

Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Interestingly, they side with the consensus when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies about how the Towers fell. Overall, per our policy, any source that rejects the known consensus of science is placed in the pseudoscience category.

NoTricksZone is another conspiracy bullshit website.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.

You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs.

Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science journals:

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

"Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK

Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.

You are indeed stupid as hell since I have given you access to over 2,000 published science research that are found in published science journals, again from the 1350+ link are papers you could have seen for yourself they came straight from science journals such as these few examples:


Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

 

[Synthaholic]

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem

That's because Americans are dumbasses. Hell, almost half of them voted for Trump.

Now go back and ask those same people if they're worried that future natural disasters are going to be more intense, more extreme, more costly and they will overwhelmingly say yes.

Climate change. Just depends on how you ask it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

 

[Confounding]

Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check

NoTricksZone is another conspiracy bullshit website.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.

You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs.

Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science journals:

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

"Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK

Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.

You are indeed stupid as hell since I have given you access to over 2,000 published science research that are found in published science journals, again from the 1350+ link are papers you could have seen for yourself they came straight from science journals such as these few examples:


Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Your conspiracy nonsense doesn't change the fact that most scientists, and especially climate scientists, agree that humans are impacting the environment. Even the skeptical scientists admit humans have some level of impact. They only dispute the severity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem

That's because Americans are dumbasses. Hell, almost half of them voted for Trump.

Now go back and ask those same people if they're worried that future natural disasters are going to be more intense, more extreme, more costly and they will overwhelmingly say yes.

Climate change. Just depends on how you ask it.

I see being stupid as a rock is contagious among liberals..

 

[Confounding]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe the different scientists think those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

 

[Confounding]

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is.... I am waiting...

 

[Confounding]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is.... I am waiting...

Like I said before, if you know something the vast majority of qualified scientists don't know then you should go get rich and famous. I look forward to reading about you.

 

[Confounding]

Oh, and you're full of shit Bob. (shocking)

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat"

Global warming won't mean more stormy weather

A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.

"We know that with global warming we'll get more evaporation of the oceans," said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T's physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. "But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine."

Atmospheric physicists largely agree that global warming is a thing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.

You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs.

Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science journals:

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

"Journal Citation List: (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK

Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.

You are indeed stupid as hell since I have given you access to over 2,000 published science research that are found in published science journals, again from the 1350+ link are papers you could have seen for yourself they came straight from science journals such as these few examples:


Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Your conspiracy nonsense doesn't change the fact that most scientists, and especially climate scientists, agree that humans are impacting the environment. Even the skeptical scientists admit humans have some level of impact. They only dispute the severity.

Never disputed that humans have some impact, but strongly dispute that CO2 is the driver of it. That is the DOMINANT theme of the Thousands of papers that make clear that additional CO2 has a small role, examples of papers you never read:

Springer

Infrared Atmospheric Emission

Boris M. Smirnov 2017

"Abstract
Emission of a flat layer, consisting of a gas with a weakly varied temperature in the perpendicular direction to the layer, is reduced to the case of the layer with a constant temperature. The average optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere in an infrared spectrum range is u≈2.7'>u≈2.7u≈2.7 and is determined on the basis of the energetic balance of the Earth and its atmosphere within the framework of the standard atmosphere model due to emission and surviving of infrared photons. It is shown that infrared emission of the atmosphere is determined mostly by atmospheric water. One can separate the flux of outgoing infrared radiation of the atmosphere from that towards the Earth. The fluxes due to rotation-vibration transitions of atmospheric CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules are evaluated. Doubling of the concentration of CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that is expected over 130 years leads to an increase of the average Earth temperature by (0.4±0.2)'>(0.4±0.2)(0.4±0.2) K mostly due to the flux towards the Earth if other atmospheric parameters are not varied. Various models with a water change give the temperature change (3.0±1.5)'>(3.0±1.5)(3.0±1.5) K at doubling of the CO2'>CO2CO2 molecule concentration. An observed temperature change (0.8∘C'>0.8∘C0.8∘C) during the industrial epoch may be realized if approximately 0.5%'>0.5%0.5% of free water molecules become aerosols, and this testifies to an atmospheric instability."

and,

Climate Research

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change

Sherwood B. Idso* 1998

"ABSTRACT: Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue."

and,

Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide

"Abstract
The well-known absorption properties of CO2 and the physics of thermal radiation permit to estimate the infrared absorption of the atmospheric CO2. The earth is considered as a homogeneous spherical black body emitter with a temperature of 288 K. An idealized atmosphere, the CO2 content of which is the only infrared absorber, surrounds the emitter. The CO2 concentration at sea level amounts to 400 ppm and the density exponentially tapers off with height. Accordingly, the average black body temperature contains the so-called greenhouse contribution. Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations. If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T. Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K. At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K."

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...

97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is some impact by humans.

LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is.... I am waiting...

Like I said before, if you know something the vast majority of qualified scientists don't know then you should go get rich and famous. I look forward to reading about you.

Come on consensus boy.... Pony up your understanding... Tell me what the core premise is... no more of your pussy footing and dodging... No more appeals to authority... show me what you think you know...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh, and you're full of shit Bob. (shocking)

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat"

Global warming won't mean more stormy weather

A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.

"We know that with global warming we'll get more evaporation of the oceans," said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T's physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. "But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine."

Atmospheric physicists largely agree that global warming is a thing.

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

 

[Confounding]

Never disputed that humans have some impact

LOL! Okay...

but strongly dispute that CO2 is the driver of it. That is the DOMINANT theme of the Thousands of papers that make clear that additional CO2 has a small role, examples of papers you never read:

So you admit that even the minority skeptic papers acknowledge that humans are impacting global temperature. They simply dispute how much of it is caused by CO2. Well, okay, but the majority of scientists who also agree that humans are impacting the environment think CO2 plays a significant role.

 

[Confounding]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.

I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.

Again you conflate natural variation with man caused. Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar. SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.